Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2009 March 19
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was Redirect to Market Place Mall (Champaign, Illinois); there was no call to delete beyond the nominator. Non-admin closure. Pastor Theo (talk) 00:00, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Market Place at Champaign[edit]
- Market Place at Champaign (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
unsourced; non-notable. —Chris Capoccia T⁄C 22:42, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Weak Keep - It looks like the article is using the wrong name. I have found some sources for Champaign's Market Place Mall, but nothing for Market Place at Champaign. A Google news search using the correct name turns this up. So, the mall itself looks slightly notable. However, the article is not named correctly. Maybe, the current article could be redirected to the the correct name?WackoJackO 23:29, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - it is notable for starting a trend in the region.[1] as well as mentions in Industry Magazines about their expansion [2][3]. Exit2DOS2000•T•C• 04:39, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Article has been moved to Market Place Mall (Champaign, Illinois) Exit2DOS2000•T•C• 07:52, 22 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- and during the ensuing edit, found to be 1,000,000 sqft. The usual tipping point for gaining WP:N. Exit2DOS2000•T•C• 08:42, 22 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. –Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 00:01, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Family Service Agency of San Mateo County[edit]
- Family Service Agency of San Mateo County (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
Declined speedy; article is an advertisement for an unnotable agency, no significant coverage LetsdrinkTea 22:04, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Strong delete – part of it is a copy-and-pasted from the website, a copyvio, while the rest of the content seems to suggest the usage of Wikipedia as its own web host. MuZemike 00:12, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I would like to respectfully contend that Family Service Agency of San Mateo County is indeed a notable nonprofit agency that has received extensive media coverage relevant to the region it serves. The article was not created as an ad, nor was wikipedia used to create it; the article copy is original.
I would like to reference again that fact that a wikipedia article previously has been approved for a similar--though fiscally unrelated--entity, Family Service Agency of San Francisco. According to Family Service/San Francisco's website, that organization serves approximately 16,000 clients annually, while Family Service/San Mateo serves 19,500 in the same general area. This certainly helps illustrate that Family Service/San Mateo is notable in its own right, with its services reaching a wider client base than the aforementioned entity. Aside from this, Family Service/San Mateo has been a successfully operating nonprofit for nearly 60 years--a feat which is certainly notable, particularly in today's dismal economic conditions.
Furthermore, Family Service/San Mateo, a regional nonprofit organization just like Family Service/San Francisco, has received extensive media coverage, including numerous feature articles and TV coverage from local ABC and NBC affiliates, links for which are provided on the wikipedia article created. A simple Google News search of Family Service Agency of San Mateo County's full name will verify this. Links were not provided to more articles/coverage since most have been archived by individual news media, but we will work on rectifying this to provide further prove of past coverage. It is also noteworthy that while a regional nonprofit, our programs/client have appeared in national Associated Press articles, as well as on Geraldo Rivera's now cancelled FOX TV show Gerlado at Large. We do not focus on national publicity since our client base is regional, and as such, the vast extent of our local media coverage should hold more significance than some in this forum are attributing to it.
As for the comment about content for the wikipedia article being culled from our website, I think this may refer to our mission (on the homepage). It is core to our operating purpose, and is written the same no matter where it appears. It was not copied from the website. Some of the copy for the website was written by the same author who created the wikipedia article, so this might explain some of the overlap. Again, we will work to rectify any repeat info, but our mission remains the same.
Finally, Family Service Agency of San Mateo County is an organization of great importance, particularly to the SF Bay Area Peninsula community that it serves. It was a life boat for struggling families when it was established following WWII, and remains today a vital resource for children, families and seniors in need. Its programs have been nationally appluaded--including by the White House. Due to the history of the organization, and its uniqe place in the SF Bay Area nonprofit community--as well as national recognition of its programs--we submit that Wikipedia would be remiss to include articles on other SF Bay Area nonprofits and not this one. (Kchouteau (talk) 18:54, 20 March 2009 (UTC))[reply]
- Please read WP:N to see why this company does not qualify. Also you state that you are affiliated with the company, see WP:SPAM and WP:COI. As for the other agency, see WP:WAX and WP:OSE LetsdrinkTea 19:50, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete unless fundamentally re-written in a non-promotional way, preferably by someone not connected with the organisation. Even if this is done, not convinced this would pass notability. Chris Neville-Smith (talk) 13:21, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete agree with above. Spam for a good cause is still spam, and this sounds like a brochure/PR-piece, and even if cleaned up I'm not seeing anything here that would pass our notability guidelines. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 22:54, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was keep or "nomination withdrawn", take your pick (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:17, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Stupid Teenagers Must Die![edit]
- Stupid Teenagers Must Die! (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
Non-notable film per WP:Notability (films) Rwiggum (Talk/Contrib) 22:02, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Non notable film, no significant coverage LetsdrinkTea 22:08, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Speedy Keep - Plenty of independent reviews can easily be found to establish notability. I have just added external links to 5 independent reviews [4] [5] [6] [7] [8], and more independent reviews can be added if anyone wishes to take the time. Let's wrap up this nuisance nomination with a speedy consensus for keep. Esasus (talk) 01:35, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. —Cunard (talk) 06:59, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Agree with User:Rwiggum, notable requires reliable sources, none of those are. --neon white talk 08:32, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- It is false to say that the many reviews for this film do not support notability. To quote Wikipedia:Notability (films), a film is notable if "The film is widely distributed and has received full length reviews by two or more nationally known critics." To quote Wikipedia:Reliable sources, "Wikipedia articles should rely primarily on reliable, third-party, published sources". "Reliable sources are credible published materials with a reliable publication process; their authors are generally regarded as trustworthy or authoritative in relation to the subject at hand." The film is widely distributed on DVD, and has received many reviews, of which I have listed just 5. These reviews are all 3rd party reviews by known Internet movie critics. The comments against this movie ring of WP:IDONTLIKEIT. The film does not need to be good to be notable. Esasus (talk) 11:46, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep in full agreement with User:Esasus, who has found souces by the experts, well known in their field, who are qualified offer opinions on the subject. You will rarely find reviews of cult horror films in the film section of the New York Times... just as you won't find a review of Sound of Music at Evildread or Horror Society. WP:NF is not just about big-budget, highly touted blockbusters. Reviews must be considered in context to what seing sourced. A pat on the back to User:Esasus! Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 19:16, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment But that's no excuse. If a film does not receive coverage from notable sources, then it likely isn't notable. There isn't a clause in WP:N that says "if something doesn't receive mainstream coverage, it can stay if some blogs and minor, unknown sites that write about other things like it cover it". It specifically requires sources from notable sources. If a film only receives minor coverage from niche outlets, then it would suggest that it is, by very definition, not notable. Rwiggum (Talk/Contrib) 19:26, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- No, it suggests that it is a niche film, which is a different thing from not notable. You're unlikely to find an article about LALR parsers in the New York Times, either, but that doesn't mean they aren't notable. Specialist topics have specialist sources associated with them, and we shouldn't expect mainstream coverage of everything. JulesH (talk) 20:20, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Also, no part of WP:N or WP:NF requires the sources to be notable. It only requires reliable and independent, which the sources above (mostly) are. Just because you've never heard of them doesn't mean they aren't perfectly acceptable sources. JulesH (talk) 20:27, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- An exactly corrrect interpretation of the inclusion guideline. Wiki is not just for highly touted, highly merchandised blockbusters. Niche films, reviewd by well known experts with expertise in their genre, can most definitely be notable. FIRST CRITERIA of WP:NF: "A topic is presumed to be notable if it has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject." It has, so it is. The additional criteria are simply indicators for the uninitiated that explain how this first criteria can be met. Since it HAS been met the very first criteria for inclusion, there is no need to quibble over "indicators". Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 22:35, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- You said it yourself. "You will rarely find reviews of cult horror films in the film section of the New York Times...". No significant coverage. Your analogy to the Sound of Music suggests that the NY Times is specifically for a certain type of movie, however that is not true. NY times coverage clearly shows notability, however you stated yourself that this is unlikely to receive that kind of coverage. LetsdrinkTea 19:56, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- You're making a logical error in your statement; that a NYT review shows notability doesn't mean that to be notable something must have a NYT review. JulesH (talk) 20:20, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- That's not what I'm saying. All that I am saying is that WP:Notability (film) stipulates that, along with wide release, (which this film does have) it must also have at least two reviews from "two or more nationally known critics". It doesn't say "two or more critics that, while not nationally know, write a lot about that genre of film." Not one of the reviews posted are by nationally known critics, not by a long shot. That's the main issue here that nobody is addressing. I understand that a film like this won't get a write-up in the New York Times, but a film on this scale could still be reviewed by nationally known critics. However, it is not. Rwiggum (Talk/Contrib) 20:30, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- You are making the error of arguing about "indicators", rather than accepting the very basic inclusion criteria... which is itself short and hard to misinterpret: "A topic is presumed to be notable if it has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject." The "indicators of likely sources" are not exclusion criteria and are set in place to help an editor determine ways to meet the inclusion criteria if they were in doubt. That inclusion criteria has been met. No need to act as if "indicators of likely sources" were themselve inclusion/exclusion criteria. They are not... and as clearly ateted in the guideline WP:NF, "are attributes that generally indicate the required sources are likely to exist". Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 22:35, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. Sources linked above adequately demonstrate notability. To insist on a mainstream source is ludicrous, and such a requirement is not supported by WP:N or WP:NF. JulesH (talk) 20:20, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment The apparently you didn't read WP:NF very closely. The first possible criterion for inclusion clearly states "The film is widely distributed and has received full length reviews by two or more nationally known critics." Rwiggum (Talk/Contrib) 20:35, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- No my friend, it is you who have not read it correctly. You are acting as if the "indicators" of sources likely existing were actually instruction. This very specific inclusion criteria you have skipped over is "A topic is presumed to be notable if it has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject". Since it has met that criteria, it IS PRESUMED NOTABLE, and has been shown to be so, specifically, and as that opening instruction dictates. What you are in good faith but erroneously quoting as criteria, are simply an "indicators of possible sources". The criteria for inclusion have been met. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 22:35, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- But it hasnt met that criteria at all. Blogs and SPS are not reliable sources and none are written by critics of any reputation. We can't just except any old reviews by nobodies that just happen to have webhosting. User:Rwiggum is correct that the guidelines say two or more nationally known critics not random bloggers. When we say that a film doesnt necessarily need mainstream coverage we are talking about coverage in specialist magazines like Rue Morgue (magazine) and Fangoria for example. Let's examine the sources:
- evildread.com nothing to establish any reliability. Discounted.
- http://thisissomescene.com is a small blog of absolutely no importance or note.
- HorrorSociety.com explains itself as "a small but personal place where you can come and hang out for a while." This is a self-published community website of no reputation. --neon white talk 00:27, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- http://dorkgasm.com appears to be based on user driven content. Discounted.
- http://www.fatally-yours.com Again another SPS of no note or importance.
- As you can see when the sources come under scrutiny they all fail to live up to the standards required for notability. Rotten tomatoes has zero reviews professional or otherwise and metacritic hasnt even heard of it. In light of that i have to go with a Strong Delete--neon white talk 00:27, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I can't comment on all of these sources, but thisissomescene.com is a project of several well-known independent filmmakers, who can be considered experts on the topic. It is clearly a reliable source on independent films, particularly low-budget horror. fatally-yours.com is a collaborative site featuring reviews from several reviewers, with editorial control of the founder; it is not self published. Besides, as you'll see from WP:SPS and WP:RS there is actually no rule against using SPSs or blogs as reliable sources, as long as their authors are reliable. JulesH (talk) 13:13, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- 13 more external reviews added to article - I took a few minutes to add another 13 external reviews and links for this movie, so the article now lists 18 independent reviews. I am certain that with another 10 minutes of work I could add yet another 20 or more reviews (but I thought 13 was the proper place to stop for a horror movie). Will an editor be critiquing all these reviews also? This film clearly meets notability criteria. Esasus (talk) 02:02, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- No, what you've done is flooded the article with useless links to no-name sites. Not one of those is a reliable source per WP:RS. Please read the guidelines so you can see that not one of those links you provided proves notability. Plus, the New York Times link you provided is not a review, it is a page for the movie on it's movies section, which is primarily user-generated. That's akin to linking to the IMDB page and calling it a "review." Rwiggum (Talk/Contrib) 02:40, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- It takes only "two or more" full length reviews to meet the notability criteria pursuant to Wikipedia:Notability (films). I could add another 40 links, but it would be pointless as I have already demonstrated that the minimum criteria has been easily surpassed. Further, this article meets the General notability guideline criteria, being that the subject “has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to satisfy the inclusion criteria for a stand-alone article.”. The definition for each word of that quote can be found at Wikipedia:Notability. The independent coverage of the subject has been demonstrated. Notability is presumed. Esasus (talk) 03:10, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- But you even said it yourself. Reliable sources Please read that so you know just what a reliable source is. In a word, not any of the links you posted. Rwiggum (Talk/Contrib) 03:53, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- What you have actually added are largely blogs and personal websites that fail WP:EL. Regardless external links arent not sources, the reason we have them is because we cannot use them for sourcing. If any of the sites listed have any reputation then that needs be established here. Verifiability and reliability are concepts that need to be proven not assumed. --neon white talk 05:11, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Accusing the editor of adding blogs and personal websites. Ouch. Blogs and SPS? Let's see if that's true, hmmmm...? Let's actually take a real look at what's available instead of simply painting everything with one negative brush, shall we?
- Evil Dread review by Jayson Champion: A reliable source for reviews of films in the horror genre. Not a blog. Not SPS. Not to be "discounted" simply because you don't like that it exists.
- This is Some Scene review: According to a bit of actual research, I find "Guerilladelphia - A Declaration of Independents! Guerilladelphia has developed ThisIsSomeScene.com to report and review the entertainment world in true Guerilladelphia style! R. James Ippoliti created Guerilladelphia and This Is Some Scene and is joined by Chris Blake Sasser, Kristin Theckston, Andrea Fix and Adam Young in covering entertainment news, reviews and interviews. We are in the process of adding to the Guerilladelphia crew of writers."... and then they share a list of editorial staff. Were you thinking no one would check when you wrote your unsourced opinion? Nope, not a blog. Blogs do not have editorial oversight. Other editors are free to follow the links and see that your assertion is incorrect.
- Dorkgasm offers a review by their senior staff writer Kenneth Holm. Editorial oversite. Not a blog. Not SPS. No more driven by users than the New York Times. Dorkgasm reviews horror genre films. The article is about a film. Hmmm... suspicious.
- Fatally Yours has an editorial staff. Not a blog. Not SPS.
- Fatally Yours offers an in-depth interview with the director about his film.
- Fatally Yours also does an in-depth review of the film too. Imagine that... a site with editorial oversite doing a review. Wow.
- Horror Society review is also another by a source that specializes in reviews of films in the horror genre. Not a bblog. Not SPS.
- Killer Reviews offers a review by staff, not by users. Not a blog. Not SPS.
- Movies Made Me Do It offers a decent review, and invites commenets. Not a blog. Not SPS. To use the reader comments would be wrong. To use the staff review would be appropriate.
- Killer Reviews also is one that offers an in-depth interview with the director about his film. Not a blog. Not a SPS.
- Film Arcade offers a staff review and then accepts reader comments. Staff review, okay. Comments, not okay.
- Dead Lantern offers an in-depth staff review. Not a blog. Not SPS.
- Scream TV offers a staff review. Not a blog. Not SPS.
- The New York Times as least shows the film is not a hoax. Not a blog... or is it? Hmmmm...
- DVD Resurrections offers an editorial review. Not a blog. Not SPS.
- Horor-Fanatics offers a review and release informations. Not a blog. Not SPS.
- It passes WP:GNG. It has been the recipient of multiple and significant covergae by experts in the field qualified to ofer such opinion. The VERY FIRST CRITERIA of WP:NF is "A topic is presumed to be notable if it has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject." The sources are inpendent and reliable experts in their field. It's what they do. The guideline DOES NOT require that the sources themselves be notable... just reliable. ANd it must be pointed out that the sources above HAVE met ALL REQUIREMENTS of WP:RS: "Reliable sources are credible published materials with a reliable publication process; their authors are generally regarded as trustworthy or authoritative in relation to the subject at hand. How reliable a source is depends on context. As a rule of thumb, the more people engaged in checking facts, analyzing legal issues, and scrutinizing the writing, the more reliable the publication. Sources should directly support the information as it is presented in an article and should be appropriate to the claims made". The sources offered HAVE a credible publication process, the authors ARE experts in the field (horror) regarded as authoritative and trustworthy, in CONTEXT to what is being sourced and because they DO have an EDITORIAL staff, and are completely supportive to assertions being made. This is quite easily determined by reading and understanding the guidelines and verifying the sources. Thank you. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 07:54, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The NY times is the only one that has any established reputation and it's coverage is minimal. None of the others have any established reputation or are of any note and yes guidelines clearly require that reviews are by nationally known critics not bloggers. There is absolutely no evidence that any of these sites are known experts. Note from your own quote credible published materials doesnt mean every website. As reviews are opinion this is not about verifying facts, it's about the importance of the critics and none of these have any proven importance. Eseentially they are nobodies not nationally known critics as required. --neon white talk 02:22, 22 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Guideline does not require the "independent reliable sources" must themselves be notable, nor does it require that reviews be from "nationally known reviewers". That is merely, as specifically stated in the guideline, one of the attributes, that if it existed, would indicate that sources are available. It does not in any way, shape, or form act to restrict sources nor mean that the sources MUST be only nationally known reviewers. This is a common misunderstanding of the attribute section.... using it as exclusatory rather than indicative. Not at all the same. That the cited sources have been successfully reviewing horror genre films for many years, speaks toward their expertise and acceptance. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 01:18, 23 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes it does, see WP:NF, "The film is widely distributed and has received full length reviews by two or more nationally known critics." Pretty clear and obviously to rule out the use of unimportant reviews on community sites and blogs which have never been acceptable as sources. Many unreliable sites have been around for years, that's simply not how reliability is established. --neon white talk 03:28, 23 March 2009 (UTC)--neon white talk 03:28, 23 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I studied it carefully. Your quote is of an "attribute that indicates that sources may be available", not itself a inclusion or exclusion criteria... simply an indicator that suggests one keeps looking (as we both have). However, we can stop debating that point I suppose, as we both found Fangoria and I found OC Weekly and Backseat Film Festival... the latter two also having wiki articles. Best, Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 04:33, 23 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes it does, see WP:NF, "The film is widely distributed and has received full length reviews by two or more nationally known critics." Pretty clear and obviously to rule out the use of unimportant reviews on community sites and blogs which have never been acceptable as sources. Many unreliable sites have been around for years, that's simply not how reliability is established. --neon white talk 03:28, 23 March 2009 (UTC)--neon white talk 03:28, 23 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Guideline does not require the "independent reliable sources" must themselves be notable, nor does it require that reviews be from "nationally known reviewers". That is merely, as specifically stated in the guideline, one of the attributes, that if it existed, would indicate that sources are available. It does not in any way, shape, or form act to restrict sources nor mean that the sources MUST be only nationally known reviewers. This is a common misunderstanding of the attribute section.... using it as exclusatory rather than indicative. Not at all the same. That the cited sources have been successfully reviewing horror genre films for many years, speaks toward their expertise and acceptance. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 01:18, 23 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The NY times is the only one that has any established reputation and it's coverage is minimal. None of the others have any established reputation or are of any note and yes guidelines clearly require that reviews are by nationally known critics not bloggers. There is absolutely no evidence that any of these sites are known experts. Note from your own quote credible published materials doesnt mean every website. As reviews are opinion this is not about verifying facts, it's about the importance of the critics and none of these have any proven importance. Eseentially they are nobodies not nationally known critics as required. --neon white talk 02:22, 22 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep I agree with Michael: upon review the article does appear to be supported by refs to independent news sources that -- despite the fact that they are specialized media, unknown to me -- appear to be be legitimate review sources and not just discussion groups. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 14:04, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- As i said before, specialized media would mean trusted sources like Fangoria etc. rather insignificant self published websites, blogs and communities. As WP:SPS says anyone can create a website, go to the movie theatre and write a review online. There are literally thousands on the internet and it has never been acceptable to use them to assert notability. --neon white talk 02:22, 22 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The cited sources are easily as trusted as Fangoria. They are not self-published... no more than is Fangoria or Wikipedia. That you feel dissmissive of them does not mean they are dissmissed. And why do you continue to throw the negative word BLOG into the mix? They are not so, having editorial oversite. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 01:22, 23 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- That is simply false. None of those sites have any proven reputation whatsoever. There is nothing to suggest any of these sites are regarded as important by the film industry. The burden is on a source to prove it is reliable we don't just assume it is or make snap personal judgements. However it does appear that the film was reviewed by Fangoria (a source that does have a reputation) [10]. --neon white talk 03:28, 23 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Well... having an article on Wiki is not as impressive as one might wish... and becasue these others have not (yet) been written up does not mean they do not have decent reputation. However, I did just find the Fangoria writeup, an article in OC Weekly[11], and awards presented by the Backseat Film Festival[12]. They've now been added and I popped over to say so... only to find that you have been digging as well. I am not through with this one quite yet. And thank you. Nice find. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 04:26, 23 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- That is simply false. None of those sites have any proven reputation whatsoever. There is nothing to suggest any of these sites are regarded as important by the film industry. The burden is on a source to prove it is reliable we don't just assume it is or make snap personal judgements. However it does appear that the film was reviewed by Fangoria (a source that does have a reputation) [10]. --neon white talk 03:28, 23 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The cited sources are easily as trusted as Fangoria. They are not self-published... no more than is Fangoria or Wikipedia. That you feel dissmissive of them does not mean they are dissmissed. And why do you continue to throw the negative word BLOG into the mix? They are not so, having editorial oversite. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 01:22, 23 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- As i said before, specialized media would mean trusted sources like Fangoria etc. rather insignificant self published websites, blogs and communities. As WP:SPS says anyone can create a website, go to the movie theatre and write a review online. There are literally thousands on the internet and it has never been acceptable to use them to assert notability. --neon white talk 02:22, 22 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- STONG KEEP per Esasus and Michael's exhastive research, showing that this exceeds all notablity requirements. Ikip (talk) 16:06, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - notability demonstrated through substantial coverage in independent reliable sources. Robofish (talk) 02:04, 23 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - I think all released movies should be kept. Quistisffviii (talk) 06:19, 23 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Thanks to Neon White for finding the Fangoria article and Mike Schmidt for finding the others. With these new sources, I'm convinced that the film meets WP:NF, so I'm requesting a close for this AFD. Rwiggum (Talk/Contrib) 16:27, 23 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. –Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 00:01, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
S Ramachandran[edit]
- S Ramachandran (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
This page is a bigraphy of a person who may or may not be of enough significance to be on Wikipædia. Please feel free to discuss/disagree. Spacevezon (talk) 18:53, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. -- — LinguistAtLarge • Talk 19:22, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete fails notability. Also definitely appears autobiographical. -Drdisque (talk) 19:56, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Per lack of notability LetsdrinkTea 22:08, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. —Salih (talk) 04:33, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Being a journalist behind some of India's greatest entertainment stories would be a good case for notability, but the claims expressed in this article are too vague, totally unverifiable, and far too easily something that anyone could have claimed to have done. Will reconsider if the news stories that this journalist supposedly broke are referenced. Chris Neville-Smith (talk) 13:14, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Rama is undoubtedly one of the best known names in the industry. As a part of the entertainment industry myself I can vouch for that. He has been around for 22 years. And his credibility in unquestionable. A Google search reveals more. Try googling him with other well known bollywood names. Many channels still do special shows with his quotes on box office performances of new films. and the stories mentioned after him are very much his work. Mid day and NDTV can verify that... or any of the celebs! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dscojyoti (talk • contribs) 14:18, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- If his credibility is unquestionable and hits show up on Google with other Bollywood names, post a few of the links here and we can take it from there. (Or, better still, post links relating to stories about S Ramachandran himself.) Unverified assertions (especially assertions from users who have not made any other contribution to Wikipedia) and Google tests alone aren't enough. Chris Neville-Smith (talk) 15:19, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Hi Chris. Please do check the links in the reference section of the article page. i have put some links there which will give you an estimation of his credibility. The links are of stories he has done and stories done on him. Stories done on him more importantly because they were done in renowned newspapers of the country. eg: http://www.screenindia.com/old/fullstory.php?content_id=13894 and http://www.rediff.com/movies/2006/nov/21asha.htm dscojyoti —Preceding undated comment added 04:27, 23 March 2009 (UTC).[reply]
- I don't think this alone is going to qualify. The notability guidelines at WP:BIO state that the depth of coverage of the subject has to be substantial, and in these two articles the coverage of S Ramachandran amounts to a single sentence. However, if the album he is directing qualifies as notable, he could certainly get a mention in an article about the album. The close of debate for this AfD is coming up, and the most likely outcome at the moment is that the article will be deleted. What you might want to do, however, is copy the article to your own userspace and keep searching for references. If you leave a message at Wikiproject India, they ought to be able to help you better than I can. Note that any promotional-sounding parts of the article will need to be re-written from neutral point of view no matter what. Chris Neville-Smith (talk) 17:20, 23 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Hi Chris. Please do check the links in the reference section of the article page. i have put some links there which will give you an estimation of his credibility. The links are of stories he has done and stories done on him. Stories done on him more importantly because they were done in renowned newspapers of the country. eg: http://www.screenindia.com/old/fullstory.php?content_id=13894 and http://www.rediff.com/movies/2006/nov/21asha.htm dscojyoti —Preceding undated comment added 04:27, 23 March 2009 (UTC).[reply]
- If his credibility is unquestionable and hits show up on Google with other Bollywood names, post a few of the links here and we can take it from there. (Or, better still, post links relating to stories about S Ramachandran himself.) Unverified assertions (especially assertions from users who have not made any other contribution to Wikipedia) and Google tests alone aren't enough. Chris Neville-Smith (talk) 15:19, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Oh I have worked with him. In fact he has taught so many entertainment journalists. He is one of the most respected names among all people in the industry today. He is quite looked up to. Jhask —Preceding undated comment added 14:24, 21 March 2009 (UTC).[reply]
- Comment. Please add your contribution to the bottom of this discussion, and sign by adding four tildes at the end: ~~~~ (which will be expanded into your signature and date when saving). -- Crowsnest (talk) 04:25, 22 March 2009 (UTc)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was merge to [[ApologetiX]]. Person meets WP:MUSIC, but currently only for band. Re-creation possible when he either becomes a member of two notable bands or also actually develops a notable solo career. slakr\ talk / 06:56, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Karl Messner[edit]
- Karl Messner (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
Delete OR Merge/redirect to ApologetiX. Only real claim to fame is his role in ApologetiX, a band which I'm not sure passes notability in itself as all of its sources consist of links from the official website (maybe someone can help me out on this). Provided that the band does qualify for notability, I don't think Messner does, per WP:BAND's "Note that members of notable bands are redirected to the band's article, not given individual articles, unless they have demonstrated individual notability for activity independent of the band, such as solo releases."
With Messner, the article was written by the subject and some single purpose accounts (although not all of them are). Sources to the article include the subject's myspace, classmates site and ApologetiX's Wikipedia article. The About.com interview only mentions him once. I think the only really reliable source is the thought-quotient interview. CyberGhostface (talk) 21:36, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Unnotable outside of the band he founded, a short summary of him on the ApologetiX page should be enough for him LetsdrinkTea 22:13, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Okay, first of all I do realize that the ApologetiX Wikipedia page is a complete disaster, however any band with over 95,000 people in their fan club (http://apologetix.com/fanclub/fanclub.php) surely qualifies as notable. I literally have mountains of material to sort through, everything from interviews to reviews to appearances. Just give me a couple days to get everything assembled & referenced and Karl's page will be a great addition to Wikipedia. When I'm done I'll clean up the ApologetiX page as well, just for good measure. Here's just a sample of the source material that I still need to sift through to get references-
About.com Interview with Karl Messner(different than the one already referenced, this one specifically with Karl)
http://christianmusic.about.com/od/interviewsal/a/aaapologetix405.htm
EntertainmentWatch.net interview with Karl Messner http://www.entertainmentwatch.net/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=13:an-interview-with-karl-messner-of-apologetix&catid=7:music-artist-interviews&Itemid=78
Karl mentioned in Reference.com's ApologetiX Entry http://www.reference.com/browse/ApologetiX
Blogspot interview http://whatsupnews.blogspot.com/2005_04_01_archive.html
American Family Association Journal http://www.afajournal.org/2005/february/2.05apologetix.asp
The Times Democrat Article http://www.thetandd.com/articles/2008/01/11/features/religion/12906978.txt
Christian Music source (APX) http://www.cmspin.com/newsmanager/anmviewer.asp?a=389&z=11
2004 Alternative Christian Musician of the year Christian Music Awards
Karl arranged collaborations with Weird Al's Drummer, Charlie Daniel's fiddle player, and the keyboardist for Three Dog night. Other bands have commented they liked them (Ted Nugent, KISS, Kid Rock)
Howard Stern Played nearly the entire album "Ticked" on the air and his producer called karl to get the band on the show
Mrunincredible (talk) 22:21, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- MergeI think the band is notable enough as I have been able to find information which appears to be reliable outside of the the myspace and band webpages. However, I don't find much mentioned about a solo career. Wperdue (talk) 22:49, 19 March 2009 (UTC)wperdue[reply]
- Official announcement here: http://blogs.myspace.com/index.cfm?fuseaction=blog.view&friendId=445181178&blogId=477778720
- There is no other info available yet because he only made the announcement on Monday. Look guys, I know that next to the mainstream artists ApologetiX doesn't amount to a hill of beans. But for an independent Christian band they have made quite a name for themselves. They are the only band that does what they do, and they have received a great deal of recognition for it. The fact remains Karl was the lead guitarist and producer for a notable band and he is now branching out into his own territory, and that is enough to qualify him for his own page according to Wikipedia's own guidelines.--Mrunincredible (talk) 22:59, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Let the author do his work, then see whether the end result is good enough :) Cheers. I'mperator 23:30, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I'm all for keeping Wikipedia free of riff raff and self promotion spam, but this guy is indeed notable. Christian Music is a major subculture, and Karl is well known in the culture. He wasn't just a member of the band as much as the personality of the band. Many people say they don't really go see the band anymore now that he's gone.
As a Web Marketer, I see that google registers hundreds of searches per month consistently over the last year for Karl Messner, and that's significant traffic for a keyword. His Solo album is going to be great. He produced all of ApologetiX work, his voice is known, his mad production skills are known. He will continue to be a significant player in the Christian Music Scene. His work is currently on the air daily on hundreds of radio stations around the world.
The song that features his voice most prominently (Scripture) is STILL the band's biggest seller on iTunes, even though that album was released 4 years and four albums ago. The only post-Karl album has been out for about a year and its highest scoring iTunes song is only at #70 (More than a Healing) [1]
All that to say Karl isn't notable because of his involvement with ApologetX. It's more accurate to say ApologetiX was only ever notable because of Karl's involvement. The lead singer says as much on their most recent DVD. "Karl's made a lot of my dreams come true" I say Keep. he's a notable player in the industry and still active. Joycell27 (talk) 06:30, 20 March 2009 (UTC)— Joycell27 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
- Merge, per my reasoning expressed here. Dan, the CowMan (talk) 21:21, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. –Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 00:02, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Platinum Chewing Gum[edit]
- Platinum Chewing Gum (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
This is a hoax, but it's a curious one, and wider than just Wikipedia. The article gives five references and two external links, but none of them mentions chewing-gum. Google-searching for "Nanogum" and "Platinum chewing gum" turns up quite a few hits, but when you look into them for a reliable source you get nowhere - they are all blog or gossip-type sites. On the article talk page reference is made to the "official company website", but there is no link to it and I cannot find one, either for "Platinum Chewing Gum" or "Nanogum", the two companies supposed to be involved.
The sort of things Google finds are zimbio.com, an article posted two days ago, with the same picture as ours, ezinearticles.com (spam-filter blacklists this link), and about.com - this last one posted by a user called "BBCNews", who has made only that one post, on 21 August, but has a Myspace page with a picture of the chewing-gum carton. She is said to be female, 28 years old, living in Switzerland, and I doubt has any connection with the BBC. Her myspace blog has one entry, about platinum chewing gum. The supposed marketing slogan "an ageless platinum life" returns no Ghits.
These articles talk in terms of multi-million dollar deals for packaging, a $250-a-box price, and $100 million lost in revenue due to smuggling the gum. If there were really a business on that scale, there would be company websites and other reliable sources to be found. Also, the recipe is said to be patented; if that were true, the patent could be cited.
The history is interesting: this article was input by Sushant 86 (talk · contribs), who has only that one single edit. A {{hangon}} tag was added, and a plea that it should be kept added to the talk page, by Markdashy (talk · contribs), who also has no other edits. However an entry "Platinum chewing gum" was added to the article List of chewing gum brands as long ago as 22 Sep 08 by 81.211.115.178 (talk · contribs) (an IP registered to SOVINTEL St Petersburg) and Platinum News (talk · contribs). On the same date an earlier version of this article was deleted CSD#G7 (author has blanked or requests deletion). These two also created the article Platinum nanoparticles which in the state they left it was nominated for deletion last September along with Comprehensive study of aging and free radicals; the latter article was deleted as "advertising masquerading as an encyclopedia article", but Platinum nanoparticles was reprieved as a valid subject subject to a major rewrite (which has happened) to remove unsourced spam/health claims. The closing admin of that AfD commented on unconvincing SPAs and sockpuppetry, and we should maybe expect the same here.
Meanwhile, this one cites no relevant reliable sources and I can find none. It's a hoax. I don't know what the point is, some kind of scam? We shouldn't be part of it. Delete. JohnCD (talk) 21:37, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. I just read Platinum#Precautions and that was enough to persuade me that nothing good can come of this idea. Lets hope it is a hoax, but if it is not, it is spam or non-notable due to lack of RS coverage. --DanielRigal (talk) 22:36, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. I was suspicious of the article for reasons I noted on the talk page. I was going to wait a day or so to see if the author could come up with anything, meanwhile JohnCD did some marvellous sleuthing and his further evidence convinces me that it's a hoax. (Funny story: the only reason I stumbled across it in the first place was because it was listed on Category:Candidates for speedy deletion. It was not tagged for speedy deletion, but the author felt the need to put a {{hangon}} on it. Protip for future hoaxers: don't draw attention to yourself.) ... discospinster talk 00:23, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete as hoax. None of the reference sources provided say anything about chewing gum. --DAJF (talk) 02:38, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete as hoax. Article claims to have been sold in the US. Under US law, the ingredients would have to be disclosed. Trade secret my butt. This is a hoax. DarkAudit (talk) 02:40, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per above.Nrswanson (talk) 03:57, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. —Fg2 (talk) 10:33, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Coment - Platinum Gum was speedy-deleted last August as "G11: Blatant advertising: or rather outright nonsense". JohnCD (talk) 12:32, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete as advertisement. But FYI, there really was a plutinum gum from Meiji Seika. And there are plutinum water. [13], [14], and [15]. Oda Mari (talk) 16:06, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - I, Sushant 86, as the author of this article, hereby, would like to apologize for the following mistakes or confusion that has arose:
1) Misinformation : Active ingredients are a trade secret
Correction:
On the contrary, the list of active ingredients in exact quantities is already mentioned on the product wrapper or box.
The same information is already mentioned in the table of contents within this article for the readers.
Ingredients are disclosed public information and are printed on the box cover.
The same has been provided in small brochure with complete details including the codes (Codex Alimentarius) of every ingredient as required by the laws in the U.S and almost all countries where this product is being sold.
2) Incomplete information: Recipe is patented
Correction: Recipe of the chewing gum is not patented or a trade secret.
But, process for producing the Platinum nanocolloidal solution (that is used in the manufacture of Platinum chewing gum) is patented in the U.S and the patent was awarded in the month of November, 2008.
Hence, I sincerely wish to edit this article and correct my unintentional mistakes. (Sushy77 (talk) 16:23, 20 March 2009 (UTC));[reply]
- Reply to Sushant86/Sushy77: it does not give great confidence in your article if, as soon as it is challenged, you admit that it is inaccurate. You are permitted to edit the article while this debate continues: the earlier versions will still be accessible in the history. The references in the article at present say nothing about chewing gum, or the "Platinum Chewing Gum" Company, or the "Nanogum" company. What the article needs is references from reliable sources to confirm its claims that they exist - please read Wikipedia:Reliable sources. Blogs, and sites like eZineArticles.com, are not reliable sources, because anyone can post there. JohnCD (talk) 20:14, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - Places of Purchase:Is it now a criterion in Wikipedia for authors to write the place of purchase also just because someone could not find it on the shelves in a super market, next to his home?
These are the brands that target high networth clients and hence the venues of purchase would be obviously only in high end retails or boutiques, gift shops in star hotels or venues where the cash loaded consumers or buyers visit. I can provide you the list of venues where this product can be purchased. But then, we can call it blatant advertising? Isn’t it??(Markdashy (talk) 16:36, 20 March 2009 (UTC));[reply]
- Reply to Markdashy: the criterion in Wikipedia is that what it publishes must be verifiable from reliable sources. We have no reliable sources to show that this gum is on sale anywhere, or even that it exists. JohnCD (talk) 20:14, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I have been having a more detailed look at what comes up from a Google search on "Platinum Chewing Gum". There is clearly a back-door marketing campaign going on. Rather than clutter up this debate I have posted notes on the article talk page. I am more than ever convinced that this article should be deleted. JohnCD (talk) 22:46, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per everyone above.Nrswanson (talk) 07:38, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per JohnCD. Convincing info at Talk:Platinum Chewing Gum#There is an internet marketing campaign going on. Radiant chains (talk) 08:34, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: Do not delete this article
These are a few credible links available on the Internet that I can provide you for the moment in support of the fact that this product does exist in the Russian Market.
1) Reputed Russian Business newspaper :
Article with regards to Platinum chewing gum had appeared in this newspaper dated: 15 June, 2006. Link to the article
I wish to draw the attention of all the wikipedians to the fact that there are numerous articles in Wikipedia which are accepted and which give references to the mentioned Russian newspaper – Delovaya gazeta “Vzglyad” (Деловая газета «Взгляд»).
Link to this newspaper in Wikipedia itself is here
This newspaper has been also recommended by VVPB (a wikipedian) as a wikisource on his page. [The link to his page is here]
And it is given as a reference in the end of various wikiarticles on different topics (cultural events, politics, personalities, songs, films, products, etc). Below are some of them to make it easier for you guys to refer or cross check:
1. wiki-article 1 (173) ↑ Юлия Малышева ЦИК раскрыл доходы Путина. Взгляд (2007-10-26).
2. wiki-article 2 ^ a b (Russian) Галковский, Дмитрий (June 22, 2005). "Березовский – между Азефом и Парвусом (Berezovsky - between Azef and Parvus)". Деловая газета «Взгляд». [16] Retrieved on 2006-12-17.
3. wiki-article 3 ↑ Башни-близнецы взорвали изнутри, Деловая газета «Взгляд» (11.09.2007).
4. wiki-article 4 ↑ ИТАР-ТАСС, Статья «Премьера мультфильма „Кин-дза-дза“ должна состояться в 2010 году». Деловая газета «Взгляд» (2-02-2008).
5. wiki-article 5 Деловая газета Взгляд: Освенцим может исчезнуть.
2) Russian government university:
Moscow State University website:
A similar report had also appeared with regards to platinum chewing gum in June, 2006.
Link to the report This is not a post in a forum or a blog or a comment or a propaganda.
But this is a serious article written by the host official website of the Moscow state university fully funded by the Government of the Russian Federation.
3) An article with regards to Platinum Chewing gum appeared on 21 September, 2008 in the Sunday Observer in Sri Lanka.
The photograph that is given with the article doesn't match with that of the original, but the content of the article does refer to Platinum Chewing Gum and Nanogum. I suppose this link will help.
(Spbland (talk) 20:03, 23 March 2009 (UTC));[reply]
- Comments: Thanks to the magic of Google Translate, I was able to read the first of those links[17]. It makes some specific claims that should be verifiable or falsifiable. This is good because it offers a chance to break the deadlock. The first section deals with a Korean discovery which seems to be unrelated to platinum or gum, so we will skip over that. The section about the gum claims that it was made at the University of Tokyo and that they are behind the company making the gum. If we can come up with a peer reviewed paper from them corroborating their involvement in the gum then that will finally prove that this is not a hoax. If we can't, then all it proves is that a Russian newspaper got hoaxed into printing nonsense on its health pages. Given the unchecked nonsense that appears in the health pages of many UK newspapers, I could easily believe that this is possible. So what happens when you search the University of Tokyo's site for words like "platinum" and "chewing gum"? You get a few results for each but nothing connecting the two. This is not looking good for the gum.
So what is next? Some Wikis. There is no point even looking at those. The next link is the Moscow University Alumni Club. Guess what? It is exactly the same text as before republished and sourced to www.vz.ru. So then we have the Sri-Lanka Sunday Observer. That offers us a few paragraphs and gives a name for the company: "Swarowski company". This fails to reveal a home page when Googled and is probably intended to be confused with Swarovski. So we have another newspaper getting hoaxed.
So does this help with notability? RS sources can be hoaxed from time to time and hoaxes themselves can be notable. The fake Hitler Diaries spring to mind. That said, hoaxing a couple of minor newspapers into giving fairly minor coverage of a fake or dubious product does not seem enough for notability. We would need to RS coverage of the hoax itself before we had a solid source for an article about it. --DanielRigal (talk) 22:30, 23 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comments: Thanks to the magic of Google Translate, I was able to read the first of those links[17]. It makes some specific claims that should be verifiable or falsifiable. This is good because it offers a chance to break the deadlock. The first section deals with a Korean discovery which seems to be unrelated to platinum or gum, so we will skip over that. The section about the gum claims that it was made at the University of Tokyo and that they are behind the company making the gum. If we can come up with a peer reviewed paper from them corroborating their involvement in the gum then that will finally prove that this is not a hoax. If we can't, then all it proves is that a Russian newspaper got hoaxed into printing nonsense on its health pages. Given the unchecked nonsense that appears in the health pages of many UK newspapers, I could easily believe that this is possible. So what happens when you search the University of Tokyo's site for words like "platinum" and "chewing gum"? You get a few results for each but nothing connecting the two. This is not looking good for the gum.
- Comment on Spbland's links above (edit-conflict with DanielRigal):
- (1) Delovaya gazeta “Vzglyad” - I don't know the status of this newspaper, but the first part of the article is about an equally improbable-sounding Korean "fountain of youth" discovery. In regard to the rejuvenating chewing gum, it says that they "have created a company" and that it will be available "shortly" in Japanese supermarkets and pharmacies. That was in June, 2006 - where is this company? Where is its website, its advertising? Have there been no follow-up stories in over two years?
- (2) is not the "host official website of the Moscow state university" - it is the website of the Moscow University alumni club, which is quite a different thing; and the text is copied from the Vzglyad article.
- (3) The Sri Lanka Sunday Observer article, dated 21 Sep 2008, is a word-for-word copy of this blog post dated 5 Sep 2008, which is not a reliable source and does not say where its information comes from. It says the rights belong to the "Swarowski" company, but there is nothing about it on the Swarovski web-site.
- Delete on one or other of two different grounds. If it's real, then this is spam. If it's not, then it's a hoax. My feeling is that one of the main ingredients could be rhubarb. I haven't seen any mention of this stuff in New Scientist, which I would expect to if there were any substance to it. If the marketing is so high level - A+++ category? (my estimation) - why are the only references to it in forums, blogs and other FREE places to
put rubbishpost interesting info? Peridon (talk) 21:04, 23 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. –Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 00:03, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Matthew Moskowitz[edit]
- Matthew Moskowitz (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
Procedural nom, previously speedied as non-notable, though there are references. Posting here to get a more final result, as CSD G4 doesn't apply where the previous deletions were without discussion. Postdlf (talk) 21:20, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletions. – David Eppstein (talk) 21:42, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete no notable third-party coverage on google search. Mystache (talk) 23:47, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete This has been speedy deleted before and has no basis to be here now...Modernist (talk) 00:01, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete I can see no signs of notability. Artypants, Babble 19:40, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Non-notable.--Ethicoaestheticist (talk) 21:50, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:02, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - Does not meet WP:Creative or WP:NOTABILITY. A google search was unable to locate any independent sources to support notability. Untick (talk) 15:35, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was redirect; no need for an AfD. (non-admin closure) Sceptre (talk) 21:21, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
UTC-03[edit]
- UTC-03 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
- Title fully overlaps UTC-3
- Current content already added to article Time in Argentina Suggest deletion: -DePiep (talk) 21:11, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. --GedUK 11:13, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
SyFy Genre Awards[edit]
- SyFy Genre Awards (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
List of awards by a no-longer existent web site; the award criteria and notability was tenuous at best; plus the article was initiated by the website's (former) owner SyFyMichael (talk · contribs), so it has the appearance of self-promotion. --- HidariMigi (talk) 20:32, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete. Article is a about web-page, no assertion of notability at all, so I'd argue it just qualifies as an A7. Chris Neville-Smith (talk) 20:43, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]- Keep and
mergesmerge to Airlock Alpha. SyFy is a legitimate genre (Stuart Elliott, "Confused by Sci Fi Name? Can 'Syfy' Clarify?", The New York Times, 16 March 2009, p. 7) and these awards are mentioned in several notable reviews from 2004/2005. Ottre 21:00, 19 March 2009 (UTC)- Okay, agree with that, merge. Not fully convinced the awards are sufficiently notable to include the whole list on Wikipedia (you can always have a link to the list on the proper website), but that's a discussion for the Airlock Alpha page. Chris Neville-Smith (talk) 21:18, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Also agree with that. Ottre 21:28, 19 March 2009 (UTC)
- Note: IMHO, a merge isn't appropriate because such an extensive list is far beyond the scope of the article Airlock Alpha, where a short description of the "award" might serve all that's needed. Many, many web fan-oriented sites give awards. These particular "awards" are virtual-- no one actually gets anything-- and they're based on website visitors voting on nominees. If anything, they're an unscientific poll of how many times fans can stuff ballots. So, if the list by itself isn't notable, then it's not going to be made more so by being copied into another article. Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information.--HidariMigi (talk) 00:48, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Okay, agree with that, merge. Not fully convinced the awards are sufficiently notable to include the whole list on Wikipedia (you can always have a link to the list on the proper website), but that's a discussion for the Airlock Alpha page. Chris Neville-Smith (talk) 21:18, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Weak Delete - I did a massive clean-up of this article in the last few days - it was full of self-important puffery and primary sources originally. Addressing the points above about reviews (made with no attribution or references, BTW), I can find no notable reviews of these awardsfrom any year, much less 2004/2005. A Google news search on the term turns up no major independent reliable sources - of the 172 listed, roughly 90% of the returns of that search are from SyFy Portal itself, and the rest appear to be blogs and fansites linking right back to SyFy Portal. A regular Google search brings back, again, mostly blog, fansite, and forum posts. In fact, in the first 20 pages of returns on that search, I couldn't find a single major reliable source. While the parent site has some minor notability now due to the SciFi Channel's rebranding, I'm not sure that these awards do. MikeWazowski (talk) 21:16, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: that may change in the near future. The article I mentioned above which broke the story hasn't been published on-line yet, and a PressDisplay search turns up 16 articles from the last couple days. Maybe we should extended-relist? Ottre 21:28, 19 March 2009 (UTC)
- Delete per WP:N, WP:V/WP:RS, WP:NOT#WEBHOST, etc. -- samj inout 16:28, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete low notability, and very little in the way of sources except for their own site. Certainly not widely recognised or cared about the way Hugo awards are. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 23:03, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. Valley2city‽ 05:47, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Resource-based Economics[edit]
- Resource-based Economics (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
Article about a WP:FRINGE economic theory/system. This is not an economic system that's recognized by the scientific community, rather it is a view held mainly by its developer Jacque Fresco who himself is not a trained economist. The concept of "Resource-based Economics" has never been published in a reputable reliable source; the only sources of information on this subject are Fresco's self-published website and the subsequent re-iteration of this information in the internet film Zeitgeist: Addendum. The article was created by User:Konamtn in a single edit on January 13; this was the editor's only edit on the English Wikipedia.
The article has never had any references to verify any of the claims made and is loaded with original research such as the following statement: "The benefits of the resource based economy are undeniable. No unemployment, No poverty, No crime, improved health and wellness." To date, the only external link or reference available for this article has been Fresco's website.
This article falls within the scope of the 2006 ARBCOM case on Pseudoscience. The case, among other things, quotes Jimmy Wales from Wikipedia:Neutral point of view#Undue weight: "If a viewpoint is held by an extremely small (or vastly limited) minority, it does not belong in Wikipedia". As far as general notability of such a theory is concerned, the case decided that "there must be sufficient verifiable information from reliable sources regarding a subject for there to be an article about it". This article seems to clearly fall within Jimbo's definition of what does not belong and at the same time it clearly fails sufficient verification. Big Bird (talk • contribs) 20:27, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. The rules are pretty clear here. If a theory has not been covered in reliable secondary sources, it fails notability. A self-published page of the theory's creator doesn't count. Chris Neville-Smith (talk) 20:40, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: please don't bite. Ottre 21:05, 19 March 2009 (UTC)
- Delete. Complete psuedoscience. wp:or, wp:hoax. Mystache (talk) 23:49, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Unsourced, non-notable original research.--Sloane (talk) 03:45, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete As above; out of context in Wikipedia. ArlenCuss (talk) 23:59, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Pseudoscience; Wikipedia's well-developed page on Natural resource economics should provide a clear contrast to the fringe theory. HeureusementIci (talk) 13:15, 23 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. slakr\ talk / 07:05, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Eric Broberg[edit]
- Eric Broberg (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
No reliable sources to make this person notable per WP:ATHLETE, also sounds like it's reading as a crystal ball. Giants27 T/C 20:12, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The Rookie Ball League appears to be a training league and certainly not a fully professional sport. Unless I have misunderstood this, delete. Chris Neville-Smith (talk) 20:38, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Baseball-related deletion discussions. —Giants27 T/C 20:42, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Athletes-related deletion discussions. —Giants27 T/C 20:42, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete "Rookie ball" may be a professional league, but it is about as low a class as you can get to still be called "professional". Nowhere near the "top level" or "medium level". We're talking sub-basement. Technically it passes WP:ATHLETE as a "professional", but common sense should say he does not. DarkAudit (talk) 21:57, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Rookie leagues are not sufficiently notable as the sole basis of inclusion for a baseball player. Jouer au Fat (talk) 22:36, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment That account only has 5 edits to date. However I have the feeling it's a former user because its second edit came to its monobook page which I didn't find till at least my 1,000th edit.--Giants27 T/C 23:04, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment It is indeed true. I have exercised WP:RTV. Jouer au Fat (talk) 23:45, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment That account only has 5 edits to date. However I have the feeling it's a former user because its second edit came to its monobook page which I didn't find till at least my 1,000th edit.--Giants27 T/C 23:04, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete One season in the Gulf Coast League and no 3rd sourse coverage does not meet the standard agreed upon for inclusion of minor league players. Hardnfast (talk) 12:58, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge to Detroit Tigers minor league players. Seems like a good candidate for that article. I'm not sure if I agree with the principle behind "minor league players" articles, but it currently exists, so might as well use it. — X96lee15 (talk) 14:35, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Disagree This too deep into the minors to be worth consideration for merge. I'd even consider looking at the "X minor leauge players" articles for culling. These guys are "professionals" in the technical sense, but the general feeling is that they aren't notable enough until they get to at minimum AAA level. DarkAudit (talk) 18:58, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete, maybe recreated once he gets to the majors or is on the major league roster (40 man roster) but right now, he's at the lowest level possible.User:MrRadioGuy What's that?/What I Do/Feed My Box 20:18, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Too early to merge to the team lists and not notable on his own. Spanneraol (talk) 22:38, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:02, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - Does not meet [[WP:ATHLETE]. The subject has never played in a major league baseball game. Untick (talk) 14:35, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge and redirect to Detroit Tigers minor league players (assuming this article survives its own AfD, which is presently underway). caknuck ° remains gainfully employed 17:52, 22 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was Keep (withdrawn by candidate). I'mperator 00:02, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Ken Davies[edit]
- Ken Davies (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
disambiguation page with no linking articles Untick (talk) 19:42, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete only one content page links to it (referring to the Australian politician). Deletion may actually spur creation of an article for one of the notable listed Ken Davieses. -Drdisque (talk) 19:53, 19 March 2009 (UTC)Keep per creation of dabbed articles. -Drdisque (talk) 21:17, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]- Keep – The consensus at MOS:DABRL is that red links, if linked at other pages as they are for the politician and the hockey player, are valid entries on disambiguation pages. This page helps readers find further information about any of the three Ken Davieses, and helps if they are looking for a Ken (Kenneth) Davis, which is not an implausible typo. Paul Erik (talk)(contribs) 20:03, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Disambiguations-related deletion discussions. —Paul Erik (talk)(contribs) 20:07, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete an interesting interpretation of MOS:DABRL. No need for this page. Eusebeus (talk) 20:09, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep According to MOS:DABRL: A link to a non-existent article (a "red link") should only be included on a disambiguation page when an article (not just disambiguation pages) also includes that red link [as it does in these cases]...To find out if any article uses the red link, click on it, and then click "What links here" on the toolbox on the left side of the page. A disambiguation page should not be made up completely of red links or have only one blue link in it, because the basic purpose of disambiguation is to refer users to other Wikipedia pages. If the only pages that use the red link are disambiguation pages, unlink the entry word but still keep a blue link in the description[as has been done in each entry on this page].
Red links should not be the only link in a given entry; link also to an existing article, so that a reader (as opposed to a contributing editor) will have somewhere to navigate to for additional information [has been done on this page].
All entries on this page meet this, all are mentioned on Wikipedia articles and this page gives people links to the articles that mention them, both by the blue links on the page and the 'What links here' function. Boleyn (talk) 20:56, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. Thanks to Paul Erik, the red links have been turned blue, so the nomination rationale no longer applies. Baileypalblue (talk) 21:06, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The nominator withdraws the nomination for deletion. My concerns for this article have been addressed. Thank you to Paul Erik for your good work in creating the two Ken Davies article stubs. Untick (talk) 23:25, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. BJTalk 00:25, 25 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Chess Club and Scholastic Center of Saint Louis[edit]
- Chess Club and Scholastic Center of Saint Louis (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
The notability is unclear to me. This is a new chess club, and it will host the US Women Championship in 2009, but is that enough to be notable in itself ? Seing the references, there are no independent sources that talk about this club. SyG (talk) 19:32, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Weak delete. There's a good article on the club here but nothing else to show it's notable outside of St. Louis, as far as I'm aware. Until it actually hosts the Championship, fails WP:NOT. Ottre 21:20, 19 March 2009 (UTC)
- Comment I guess you mean WP:NOTE for notability rather then WP:NOT for what wikipedia is not?. IF WP:NOT, what part does it fail? As this is a non-profit organisation the relevant notability criteria to meet is WP:ORG. That is turn IMO boils down to having sufficient reliable sources(WP:RS). SunCreator (talk) 00:39, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I did mean WP:NOTE. In fact, trying to cut down on the abbreviations, would have said cyclopedic rather than WP:NOT. The club should be seen as a precinct. Ottre 12:53, 20 March 2009 (UTC)
- Comment I guess you mean WP:NOTE for notability rather then WP:NOT for what wikipedia is not?. IF WP:NOT, what part does it fail? As this is a non-profit organisation the relevant notability criteria to meet is WP:ORG. That is turn IMO boils down to having sufficient reliable sources(WP:RS). SunCreator (talk) 00:39, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:05, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - WP:RS found. http://stlouis.bizjournals.com/stlouis/stories/2009/03/16/daily4.html SunCreator (talk) 00:20, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - it seems to have gotten some real coverage and to be somewhat notable in St. Louis. Carlo (talk) 04:22, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment/Question There is a lot of information in this article that seems likely to be unverifiable from third party sources - things like their interior layout and decoration. If all of that is removed, is there anything notable left? Locke9k (talk) 16:14, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 19:11, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
*Keep, Notability has been met. They are hosting a national tournament among other things and are mentioned in a couple of reliable sources including the USCF website [18] Tavix (talk) 20:05, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete unless further evidence for notability can be established. See Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies). In particular, "A company, corporation, organization, team, religion, group, product, or service is notable if it has been the subject of significant coverage in secondary sources." Also, "Trivial or incidental coverage of a subject by secondary sources is not sufficient to establish notability." The articles referenced here are actually articles on the national tournament. The club is only mentioned as the location of the tournament. Based on these references, it would be more appropriate to create a page on 2009 U.S. Women’s Chess Championship that could mention this club. Locke9k (talk) 20:34, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Copyvio. Locke9k is correct. Original source, Terms of use. A clear case. Blanking accordingly.—S Marshall Talk/Cont 21:04, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete I think this is a clear case for deletion, unless someone comes up with something that is notable AND isn't a copyright violation. Bubba73 (talk), 21:15, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete as a copyvio. MuZemike 22:50, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. –Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 00:11, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
IMagic OS[edit]
- IMagic OS (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
Non-notable kubunutu distro. The only links are blogs and trivial (for our purposes) mentions at distro directories. There seems to be a single review of this but the providence of that site is undetermined. No reliable sources = no article. --Cameron Scott (talk) 15:11, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. -- — LinguistAtLarge • Talk 19:20, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Reposting what I put on the article's talk page: I can find extremely little independent media coverage. [19] is one of the few. The rest are obvious spam blogs, Linux distro list sites, and forums (many appearing, again, to be spam posts, such as [20]). -- Consumed Crustacean (talk) 02:36, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - Lacks reliable sources that consider it to be an important distribution. There are too many Linux clones for us to cover all of them. (Ubuntu itself is obviously important, and has lots of press coverage, but this one has a long way to go). EdJohnston (talk) 06:29, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete nn -- samj inout 16:27, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. –Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 00:06, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Realms of Adventure[edit]
- Realms of Adventure (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
Insufficient evidence of notability for an article. Ryan Paddy (talk) 19:00, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Game-related deletion discussions. -- — LinguistAtLarge • Talk 19:21, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Speedy delete. CSD A7: Article about an organisation that doesn't say why the organisation is important.—S Marshall Talk/Cont 21:59, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete but not speedy. There are claims of notability there, though weak (any LARP game system that is seeing play after 6 years is pretty notable. Membership in the LARP group too. But I like to be (very) careful with speedies. Hobit (talk) 01:03, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:28, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Mohan Apte[edit]
- Mohan Apte (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
Delete google shows many hits for Mohan Apte, but most seem to be other people and those that might be this guy don't seem to be WP:RSes. Fails WP:V and probably WP:BIO as well. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 18:35, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. -- — LinguistAtLarge • Talk 19:23, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Weak keep for now - I'm not totally convinced, but what do you make of these sources? [21], [22], [23], [24], and [25] — LinguistAtLarge • Talk 19:26, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete for now echoing nom concerns. Sources adduced above are not indicative of notability. Eusebeus (talk) 20:13, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Not so fast. Reading through Linguist's references I see "An exhibition on astronomy covering aspects of our solar system, space research and observational astronomy inaugurated by well-known science writer Professor Mohan Apte"; and "Mohan Apte, former head of the department of Physics at Bhartiya Vidya Bhavan, Chowpatty"; both from Indian newspapers. Those references appear to indicate he gets over the notability barrier under WP:PROF. Can anyone confirm those are Indian national newspapers?—S Marshall Talk/Cont 22:08, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - the stub needs some work before we can discuss this further. Rescue? Bearian (talk) 14:51, 20 March 2009 (UTC) Better citations and a biography would help. Bearian (talk) 14:53, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. From little stubs, great articles grow. -65.246.126.130 (talk) 17:14, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep: Added some sources, wikified (which should be the first thing folks do when assessing an article). Marginal sources, but seems to meet at least one of WP:PROF: "5. The person holds or has held a named/personal chair appointment or "Distinguished Professor" appointment at a major institution of higher education and research." and MAYBE "7. The person has made substantial impact outside academia in their academic capacity.". Online sourcing is going to be hard for this, but it sounds like from the press accounts and emails (which we can't use) if I were from Mumbai, he work would be accessible.T L Miles (talk) 17:24, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions.
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. —Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:03, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Apte appears to be widely read within India as a "well-known science writer," in the words of one of Linguist's supplied cites. I've tagged this AfD in the India-related deletion discussion and hope that some of our Indian colleagues can shed more light on Apte's notability -- or lack of.Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:13, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: I also left a note on the talk page of the creator. In future, it might be helpful to do this when you nominate a page for deletion, especially when dealing with a foreign language topic. T L Miles (talk) 18:40, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Weak Keep I know no proper way to evaluate the importance of this material. The criteria for WP:PROF are not really much help here; based on the apparent references to his work, and to avoid cultural bias, I would not delete it. DGG (talk) 21:30, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep DGG sums it up well - also no real red BLP flags are cropping up so some time to work on it is ok. Casliber (talk · contribs) 02:25, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. –Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 00:07, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Andee Stowl[edit]
- Andee Stowl (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
Nothing indicating notability per WP:BIO. I tagged it for notability a week or so ago, but the creator has not edited since the creation of this article, so it appears that this is a single purpose account creating a vanity article about himself. -Lilac Soul (talk • contribs • count) 18:26, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Google has nothing RS on this guy. The article barely aspires to notability. I find the thought of somebody wishing to be notable merely as a "socialite" highly depressing. --DanielRigal (talk) 18:34, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. -- — LinguistAtLarge • Talk 19:30, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - unable to find any reliable sources to support a claim to notability for the subject. — LinguistAtLarge • Talk 19:33, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete High school hi-jinks. Fails WP:BIO.TheJazzDalek (talk) 19:40, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Speedy delete under A7 (Wikipedia:Speedy#Articles). --Edcolins (talk) 12:21, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Zealand-related deletion discussions. —David Eppstein (talk) 16:01, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was merge to Fighting Spirit (manga). Valley2city‽ 05:43, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Hajime No Ippo: New Challenger[edit]
- Hajime No Ippo: New Challenger (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
Everything within this article is covered in the original article (See:Fighting Spirit (manga)) if anything it's basically just a copy and edit job the only things changed within this is the episode count, voice cast and Staff. Afkatk - The Mind Reader (talk) 18:24, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge to Fighting Spirit (manga). There was no need to bring this to AfD though. You could have just, like, MERGED it, or at least thrown up a "suggested merge" and/or a prod. Pretty much the merge would just involve an update on the infobox for now, I'd think. Maybe spin this back out later if there's a good reason to. 159.182.1.4 (talk) 18:33, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Well for one it's a useless article so I'd feel a delete was necessary hence bring it into AfD. Afkatk - The Mind Reader (talk) 18:50, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- As a title of a sequel series, a redirect is more appropriate than deleting altogether, so a reading can find the info they're looking for. —Quasirandom (talk) 19:10, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I think you miss my point. True, the article (in its current form, mind you) is redundant. I'm saying AfD is the nuclear option. You could have just 1) merged the infobox into the main series article, and then 2) redirected. It would have been all over in under 5 minutes (unless contested and reverted). Now we have to go through a formal 5-day AfD process. See WP:BEFORE. 159.182.1.4 (talk) 19:16, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment This article is dedicated to the New Challenger, which according to the inbox started in January 2009. Since it had some of the same characters, the information and pictures of those characters was copied elsewhere. Not a lot of information added though, since the series is apparently very young. Perhaps a redirect to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fighting_Spirit_(manga) until there is enough information to warrant an article of its own. Dream Focus 19:18, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Redirect/Merge to Fighting Spirit (manga). Per anime/manga MOS, should all be covered in one article as it is not significantly different from the primary work. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 19:22, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Anime and manga-related deletion discussions. -- -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 19:22, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge information about air dates, theme music, lead director, animation studios, and etc. to Fighting Spirit (manga). Character summaries should be left to the list of characters. I'm disheartened to find that Fighting Spirit (manga) doesn't contain anything about the anime beyond an episode list. This should be corrected following the pattern seen at Shugo Chara!#Anime. --Farix (Talk) 20:46, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge as per project consensus in Wp:MOS-AM Dandy Sephy (talk) 04:06, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge One centralized article for an overall coverage and as many spin-out article as necessary and no more. We don't need duplicated information. --KrebMarkt 09:01, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. Speedy as disparaging article with no other focus, G4 Der Wohltempierte Fuchs (talk) 19:55, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Intolerance and the panarabism connection[edit]
- Intolerance and the panarabism connection (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
Contested prod, entire article is soapboxing, written like an essay. By its very nature, the article topic cannot be a neutral encyclopedic article. Not a likely search term so no redirect is necessary. Obvious delete. The Seeker 4 Talk 18:09, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Aside from the obvious violation of Neutrality, this entire article stinks of complaining and lopsided moaning of "bias". Cheers. I'mperator 18:28, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete, WP:SOAP, WP:NOR, WP:SYNTH, WP:NPOV, WP:GNG, take your pick. -Lilac Soul (talk • contribs • count) 18:41, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete This is an attack page composed entirely of original research and synth to create a fork from Pan-Arabism and Arab nationalism. Even the title "... and the panarabism connection" violates NPOV (and makes us sound like discoverthenetworks). Here's a random sample of the garabage in this screed "An Arabist can be referred to 1) someone that is well knowledgeable of Arab culture and nationality but can also be referred to a radical nationalist anti non-Arab or 2) a 'fanatical' supporter of Arabism's wars, dictatorship and bigoted policies." This really should be speedied; originally research attack pages should not go through a lengthy process. Bali ultimate (talk) 19:14, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I would have tagged it for speedy, but no criteria really fits, as it is definately negative, but not a BLP, and it isn't a blatant attack page as such. It is simply a negative essay soapbox, and is here simply because the prod was removed by the author. I do support a speedy delete based on WP:SNOW however. The Seeker 4 Talk 19:17, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Well, it is an attack on an entire group of people (arabs) filled with borderline racist claims about arabs and their allies that secretly control the british foreign office and the US department of state. I understand there's no clear speedy criteria for this kind of stuff (there should be) but if an admin happens along, i urge them to snowball close and delete, and salt.Bali ultimate (talk) 19:25, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Found an excellent speedy criteria: Recreation of deleted material, Racism and the panarabism ideology. See this AN/I from february. [26] Probably same guy and same crap. Knew it rang a bell.Bali ultimate (talk) 19:34, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete without prejudice against recreation. Consensus on the AfD seems to say that the topic is a valid article but cannot exist in it's current form. Valley2city‽ 05:40, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
NOTE: for the sake of clarity, have made a slight grammatical correction to the closing summary. Ottre 18:16, 26 March 2009 (UTC)
Islam and civil rights[edit]
- Islam and civil rights (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
This article fails wikipedia's original research policy because it is a "synthesis of published material that serves to advance a position", namely that the position of women in Islam has been misconstrued; also fails WP:NPOV and WP:SOAP andy (talk) 17:45, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note that the section that was clearly attempting to argue a point regarding the role of women in Islam has been removed, therefore the asserted reason for deletion is no longer valid.Vote Cthulhu (talk) 03:08, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete, could potentially be a valid article but would require starting from scratch and not working from this biased article. -Lilac Soul (talk • contribs • count) 18:44, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - Yes, the nominator is right, it serves to advance a position, and is a synthesis of published material that seeks to advance that position. WP:SOAP article, though WP:NPOV isn't a criterion for deletion. Also, I'm disturbed that the article uses Wikipedia, self-described as a tertiary source at WP:PSTS, as a source, though this, too, is not a criterion for deletion. Jd027talk 19:08, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Islam-related deletion discussions. —Aleta Sing 19:49, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - article is based on SOAP and OR. -Drdisque (talk) 19:54, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete this load of WP:BOLLOCKS, but if snow deleting in the next day or so, please userfy it to me so I can go through the sources and check if any of them could be useful at Women in Islam.—S Marshall Talk/Cont 21:48, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - Per above editors.WackoJackO 23:42, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
DeleteTotally OR to advance a particular POV. There probably could be a valid article written with such a title, but this is not it. Aleta Sing 03:58, 20 March 2009 (UTC) After doing a little link following, I think the thing to do is redirect to Islamic ethics. Aleta Sing 18:44, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]- Delete Since there are no civil rights in Islam, no article is needed. (No offense intended) Debresser (talk) 13:24, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - This is a real mess, but it could, after discussion and much work, end up something like Palestinian law. But it might not be worth the hassle. Bearian (talk) 14:55, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I've just followed a link from there to Sources of Islamic law, which is so vastly better than Islam and civil rights that I would probably have simply redirected if I'd known about it. On the other hand Islam and civil rights has already been deleted once so an AfD consensus is probably the best thing. andy (talk) 16:01, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep, at least temporarily Note that the article in question has been tagged as under construction, which is intended to protect a fledgling article from immediate deletion. Please also note that this article is part of a collaborative project on the part of students learning, in part, about how Wikipedia works. As edits are still being made on this article, as observed in the article's edit history, I do not understand the eagerness with which the nominator has moved for the article's deletion. I recommend that the article be allowed to stand until the present work on it is completed. Once edits have ceased, as indicated by the under construction tag, I think that it would be justifiable to consider deletion. And if this article, or any other, retains serious flaws I would also agree to their deletion. At the moment, however, it is simply to early, and frankly is not in good form given how new the article is and the tagged request for patience while under construction.Vote Cthulhu (talk) 20:15, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Collaborative writing is a great idea, but the products do not appear moving towards being encylopedia articles (i.e., "wiki, but not Wikipedia"). There are actually a bunch of articles that are apparently part of this same school project. Almost all are in a similar soapbox/essay state at best. Sure, the links and cites are being added and some other minor cleanups, but the whole tone and POV/content-forky nature are the fatal problem IMO. Vote Cthulhu has repeatedly been invited to read WP:SUP on several talk pages, to have students work in sandboxes until the articles are actually viable for mainspace, and provide more information about the project so others can help or know what to expect, but has thus far completely refused as far as I can see. So now there are 5 days to get this one into decent shape. DMacks (talk) 20:43, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Several points must be mentioned here: 1) Not all of the sections in every article reveal POV content. This particular article has already seen a large chunk of POV material removed. POV can similarly be removed from the other articles as well. This does NOT require wholesale deletion. If this is the "fatal problem" then these can be excised and the articles saved; 2) I have read WP:SUP. This does nothing to resolve the present situation and adds nothing to the present discussion; 3) I have replied when asked what others can expect: groups of students are working collaboratively and separately to build distinct articles on a range of topics and religions. The root components of these articles ought to be in place this weekend, with ongoing editing over the next several days. As there are many students involved, one might expect some parts of any given essay to be better than other parts. There should thus be expected to be some parts that will be terrible and others to be quite good. Deleting an entire article throws out the baby with the bath water. Therefore, I've asked editors to consider helping to edit the articles rather than simply trying to have them deleted even as they are being edited. So, now there are 5 days to get this one into shape. Great. Please feel free to assist in getting it there. Wikipedia, as I see it, is not a place for conservatives who wish to delete anything that they see as offensive, misguided, or "against policy" but should instead be a place where a community works together to build the best possible resource for first-stop information. Deleting this article out of hand is, frankly, regressive. (Finally, the identities of either me or my students, the institution that they are affiliated with, or the course they are pursuing are not in any way relevant to this discussion whatsoever).Vote Cthulhu (talk) 03:06, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- A question that is relevant though is: is the material already better covered in other articles on Wikipedia, such as Islamic ethics, Homosexuality and Islam, Women in Islam, and others? Would it be better for the students to work on expanding and clarifying these existing articles? Aleta Sing 03:18, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Certainly relevant questions. These are not the issues stated as the reason for deletion above, however, which I think has already been dealt with in the article. As to these questions, however, while some of the material in this article are dealt with elsewhere, not all of it is. A reader looking for information on civil rights issues has to search through all of those articles that you've mentioned, and others, in order to find what he or she is looking for. This new article ought to provide the desired information more readily. So, while these other articles will doubtless go into far greater detail o the broad issues surrounding women or homosexuality in Islam, say, the present article will focus all of these topics within the framework of Civil Rights. I hope that answers your questions. Is it better to have more or less Wikipedia articles? Arguments can be made on both sides. Here, the argument for more articles is that this one will bring a number of issues together under one heading, while providing the links out to more detailed articles when necessary and/or available.Vote Cthulhu (talk) 03:36, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- A question that is relevant though is: is the material already better covered in other articles on Wikipedia, such as Islamic ethics, Homosexuality and Islam, Women in Islam, and others? Would it be better for the students to work on expanding and clarifying these existing articles? Aleta Sing 03:18, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete as soapboxy synthesis. Note the article should also be scrutinized for potential copyright violations: compare the Alcohol in Islam section and this essay. Another article created by the same supposed school project also had similar problems: See my comments at the Hinduism noticeboard. Abecedare (talk) 03:57, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- There is no copyvio here. The author has paraphrased in summary points found at a sourced online article.Vote Cthulhu (talk) 12:22, 22 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Vote Cthulu was unaware that multiple editors could work on the same article in a sandbox or about the possibility of userfication. I recommned userfying this article to Vote Cthulu's userspace, and would be happy to do the move. Note to Vote Cthulu and Students: any copyright violations are still not allowable in userspace, and can and will be deleted upon recognition as such. Aleta Sing 04:01, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- As I've explained in another discussion, I am unable to do anything with a userfied version at this time.Vote Cthulhu (talk) 12:22, 22 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Then you're really leaving us little choice except to delete: WP is not a free webhost. DMacks (talk) 16:24, 22 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- NOTE - I've nominated a related article at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Taoism and death - same people, same problems.
- Delete more of the same school project that brought us Hinduism and science, and with all the same problems. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 00:15, 22 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- User-fy and Delete: Sorry, this is a poorly cobbled together synthesis, despite User:Vote Cthulhu's outstanding effort. It needs a full tear down as the topic itself is dubious, and I'm not convinced that (on Wikipedia, at least) could be ever be anything other than a fork for dueling POVs involving people like User:Debresser (who at least is honest about a prejudice quite common around here). It's telling there is no Christianity and civil rights or Judaism and civil rights articles. I'm not clear what the definition of the topic even is, apart from "yes, we adhere to basic concepts of civil rights" or (worse) "no they don't". Something along the lines of Civil rights law in Muslim majority nations or Civil rights in Muslim law (which could examine alternate definitions which might equate to Civil rights before their invention in the West). These might be encyclopedic, but that title is going to drag you down all sorts of back alleys that I'm not sure Wikipedia should be going. Also, someone needs to get a handle on whomever is sponsoring these article at UC, email or phone them, and tell them to cut it out. Creating a bunch of "[religion name] and [random modern topic]" is a really poor idea. After the third, there needs to be some community sanction. T L Miles (talk) 18:14, 22 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Well you should check out the last remaining afd in this group of "[religion name] and [random modern topic]" articles, namely Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Christianity in Haiti. All the other ones are strongly Delete because of the quality of the article but this one is entirely Keep because of the notability of the topic. Indeed one editor comments that it should be kept specifically because it's a "Christianity in..." article despite acknowledging the fact that the article itself is unsalvageable. Go figure. andy (talk) 18:26, 22 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Good point! From what I can glean (since the person who gave the assignment is not forthcoming) students were asked to create "[religion name] and [random modern topic]" articles here on Wikipedia. Expect the person giving the assignment didn't think to see if the topics students would be creating would fall within community guidelines, let alone what would happen to th content they created if other editors felt it was poor. Perhaps the learning element for the students will be to learn that the community does have standards, and a process by which we decide if topics fit into what we need. Getting the assignments which don't meet these standards deleted might be the process which they learn this. Regardless, our obligation is not to this class or their professor: we shouldn't take into account at all if s/he can't meet with students or if grades depend on these article being on Wikipedia at a certain time, with certain content, or at a certain name. I've taught and been in classes and seminars with poorly thought out assignments. The professor should consider this a learning experience, let student work be userfied or moved to some other wiki, and move on. Per Christianity in Haiti, I'll make my comments there
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was keep. Discussing to merge should take place at the article's talk page. –Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 00:08, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Antsy Pants[edit]
- Antsy Pants (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
Non-notable band. ▫ JohnnyMrNinja 17:24, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep per WP:BAND; specifically, it Has had a charted single or album on any national music chart. Consequently, despite it's Stubbiness, it must remain as Notable. Cheers. I'mperator 18:31, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Do you have a link to verify that they have charted? — LinguistAtLarge • Talk 19:34, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Well, in our own Wikipedia, there's an article Antsy Pants (album). Cheers. I'mperator 21:30, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Mentions nothing about charts, either, I'm afraid. -Lilac Soul (talk • contribs • count) 14:30, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Well, in our own Wikipedia, there's an article Antsy Pants (album). Cheers. I'mperator 21:30, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Do you have a link to verify that they have charted? — LinguistAtLarge • Talk 19:34, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge and redirect to Kimya Dawson. I don't understand the keep by Imperator above - the article says nothing about charts, so that cannot be used to establish notability. -Lilac Soul (talk • contribs • count) 18:48, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. Includes a notable musician in its ensemble (Kimya Dawson) who has been part of another notable band (The Moldy Peaches), and its music was featured in the movie Juno and its soundtrack, thus it satisfies two criteria of WP:BAND. Because multiple different articles have claims on this band, the article should remain independent instead of being redirected/merged. Baileypalblue (talk) 00:35, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge and redirect to Kimya Dawson. Trivial stand alone coverage. Article best merged with the more notable Dawson. JamesBurns (talk) 01:24, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. —--Avant-garde a clue-hexaChord2 14:16, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep, mainly for Kimya Dawson being a member and the soundtrack contributions by both, Kimya solo and the band. The soundtrack album has had a lot of media coverage and did chart well. [27] [28] [29] --Avant-garde a clue-hexaChord2 16:06, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. It's run it's course and SNOW DELETE Valley2city‽ 21:07, 23 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Sindre Sørhus[edit]
- Sindre Sørhus (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
Contested PROD (reverted without explanation or addressing the problems). Unreferenced and unverifiable. Possible hoax. If not a hoax then a non-notable person. No corresponding article on the Norwegian Wikipedia. Googling shows that at least one person called Sindre Sørhus does exist but there is nothing that matches the description here or which shows RS coverage. There is a Sindre Sørhus on Flickr who posts photos of dogs and the author of this article also makes edits related to articles about photography and dogs (changing the images to ones he uploaded to the Commons). Possibly a bizarre sort of fictionalised autobiography. DanielRigal (talk) 17:03, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - Obvious hoax. How can a couple have a 'gay half child', for example? AlexTiefling (talk) 17:29, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete as NN or hoax. The last two sentences (about his wife and child) were attack added by an IP - I have deleted them as unsourced negative BLP. JohnCD (talk) 17:31, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment As posted on the discussion page. This was posted to question the truthfulness of the article.
74.69.39.11 (talk) 18:37, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete, the Kødd award does not appear to be notable enough to lead to notability per WP:BIO's section on awards, and he fails WP:ATHLETE since he is not yet competing as a professional. May indeed be a hoax, but even if not, this person isn't notable - there isn't even an article on him at Norwegian Wikipedia (check yourself). -Lilac Soul (talk • contribs • count) 18:54, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per above. -Drdisque (talk) 19:56, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. As the original prodder, my reasoning was "While there are claims of importance (winning award), can't verify anything in the article in a gsearch. Either non-notable or a hoax." I still stand by that.--Fabrictramp | talk to me 23:46, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Norway-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 23:51, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Athletes-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 23:51, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Unsourced article, and I haven't been able to find any sources about Sørland the body builder. This is an article about a person with the same name who received coverage for a series of mountain climbing expeditions, but there is no evidence that this is the same person. Sjakkalle (Check!) 11:48, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Speedy delete as hoax No sources to verify this person is real.--Giants27 T/C 14:07, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Regretful delete. Wikipedia's coverage of people who like to sit on a bench in their spare time is woefully inadequate, but there are no sources to verify Sørhus' notability for this or anything else. -- Shunpiker (talk) 06:36, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per everyone above.Nrswanson (talk) 07:40, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. –Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 00:08, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Double kiss[edit]
- Double kiss (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
Based on the current content of the article, I don't believe this film satisfies Wikipedia's inclusion criteria for films, as there is no evidence that it received significant coverage in independent, reliable sources. JavaTenor (talk) 16:54, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per WP:MOVIE - IMdB doesn't even have an article by this name, and they have just about everything. -Lilac Soul (talk • contribs • count) 18:57, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete film which according to the article, possibly doesn't exist. -Drdisque (talk) 19:57, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete: not finding the substantial reliable source coverage that would be needed to justify an article on an unreleased film. Baileypalblue (talk) 21:29, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. —Cunard (talk) 07:03, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was redirect to The Cheesy Adventures of Captain Mac A. Roni. –Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 19:14, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Captain Mac. A. Roni[edit]
- Captain Mac. A. Roni (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
Article about a fictional character who has no notability independent of the series he appears in. KuyaBriBriTalk 16:49, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I am also nominating the following related page because it is a redirect to the main nominated article that was originally created as a mirror of that article: KuyaBriBriTalk 16:56, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete both As they are not notable. T-95 (talk) 17:50, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Redirect to The Cheesy Adventures of Captain Mac A. Roni, it's very much a plausible search term for this article. I would normally say merge, but there's already a lot of info in the target article. -Lilac Soul (talk • contribs • count) 18:59, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. -- Hiding T 13:03, 23 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:06, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Redirect per rationale given above by Lilac Soul. --mwalimu59 (talk) 18:36, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was moved to the Bass Player (album) page, leaving the AFD moot. Non-admin closure. MuZemike 00:19, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Bass Player[edit]
- Bass Player (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
After a good faith search for references to show notability, I've come to the conclusion that this is a non-notable album by a non-notable group. Part of the problem may be that the album's name "Bass Player" and the group's name "Rhombus" both bring up a lot of unrelated hits when searching. So, is this notable? — LinguistAtLarge • Talk 16:24, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note this article has been moved to Bass Player (album) — LinguistAtLarge • Talk 23:01, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. -- — LinguistAtLarge • Talk 16:25, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Redirect to Bassist as a plausible search term. -Lilac Soul (talk • contribs • count) 19:00, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Zealand-related deletion discussions. -gadfium 19:46, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Despite the fact that this is CLEARLY eligible for speedy deletion per {{album}}, that was declined because it's in AFD, so here I am registering my opinion that it spectacularly fails WP:NALBUMS. For future reference, nominator, if the artist is redlinked, use {{album}}—it's much quicker! TheJazzDalek (talk) 19:52, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - actually, now that I think about it, Bass Player (magazine) should be at Bass Player. — LinguistAtLarge • Talk 19:53, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep: The album Bass Player (special Edition) by Rhombus has been listed for 7 weeks on the NZ Albums Top 40.[30] Award nominated: [31] Other sources: [32] [33] Consider a move to Bass Player (album) to make space for a redirect to bassist. --Avant-garde a clue-hexaChord2 19:57, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment if this article is kept, the page it is currently on should be a disambig, not a redirect: we have 3 choices - this article, bassist and Bass Player (magazine). JulesH (talk) 20:39, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Redirect to Bassist -Drdisque (talk) 19:58, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep per HexaChord: band appears notable, and consensus is we keep articles on notable bands' albums. JulesH (talk) 20:39, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep per HexaChord. We should probably undelete the article on the band, which was speedied despite a claim on the talk page that they had won numerous awards.-gadfium 20:46, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep and name change to Bass Player (album). It passes notability per HexaChord. Here's some more ref's too; from Charts.org.nz, Muzic.net.nz, and there's more than enough to fill out the article. I'd recommend that this page redirect to bassist as this is the most common meaning of the word, and there is already a hatnote to Bass player magazine there. I'll put my hand up and volunteer to write the Rhombus (band) article too. Esradekan Gibb "Talk" 22:36, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Nomination withdrawn - Good job hexaChord, you found what I was unable to find. — LinguistAtLarge • Talk 22:48, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note - I moved this article to Bass Player (album). — LinguistAtLarge • Talk 22:53, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- This needs to be closed, could some passing admin please do the honours?—S Marshall Talk/Cont 23:06, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. –Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 00:09, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Energyshop.com[edit]
- Energyshop.com (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
The speedy as advertising was declined for some reason half a year ago, but as it stands now the article is spam about a nonnotable website that fails WP:WEB. There's some wikipuffery involved here as well, as it appears well-referenced but the references are for trivial details and none of them go to assert the notability of the website. The site hasn't made an appearance on the news, and nothing can be found through a regular google search to show notability. Also, a conflict of interest is apparant with the creator "Ianatenergyshop". ThemFromSpace 16:14, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - While I haven't looked at the history to see if someone removed the obvious spam, I only saw one sentence that could be considered a COI or POV and one section that has OR. I removed the POV and the OR. The rest simply states facts about the company. Still, I don't think the company is notable per WP:WEB or WP:COMPANY. As a note, a company listing what it does or even creating an article about itself isn't spam or grounds for deletion. Sentences like, "Company X is the best company" is spam. Sentences like "Company X is service provider" is not spam. The difference is a statement of opinion (POV) and a statement of fact. OlYellerTalktome 16:44, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per above. T-95 (talk) 17:33, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - Article seems like blatant advertising.WackoJackO 23:44, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete WP:ADVERT. -- samj inout 16:22, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. Icewedge (talk) 15:54, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
RentLaw.com[edit]
- RentLaw.com (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
Non-notable website, the speedy tag was removed by a "new" user whose only edits have been to edit war to remove db tags. Who then was a gentleman? (talk) 21:59, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: The edit warrior has turned out to be a sockpuppet of an indef-blocked troll. Who then was a gentleman? (talk) 17:22, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete as spam. -- IRP ☎ 22:06, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Procedural use of relist to reflect on new AFD log for this discussion. This AFD was relisted at 15:44, 19 March 2009 (UTC). Please add new comments below this notice. Regards SoWhy 16:27, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Speedy delete as spam. Stifle (talk) 16:04, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Pile on speedy Headbomb {ταλκκοντριβς – WP Physics} 17:01, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Weak Keep - not a speedy candidate, not clear spam. Seems notable enough for inclusion, with sources like these. SoWhy 17:08, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Speedy delete poorly written spam. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 19:02, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete as WP:SPAM. Fails WP:N and WP:WEB as well. ThemFromSpace 19:33, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete as WP:SPAM. Eusebeus (talk) 20:14, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: this article was speedied before and taken to DRV where it was decided to let the AfD run it's course. So I bring it back here. --Tone 21:48, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Weak keep. I'm with SoWhy; I can see how this could be improvable, though it's not high on my personal list of priorities to do that.—S Marshall Talk/Cont 21:53, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - 'nuff said. Untick (talk) 23:38, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete as advert spam.--HidariMigi (talk) 01:28, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete or userfy per WP:N, WP:ADVERT, and WP:COI (orig editor)
- Delete - this is not a real property law article - it is spam. Speedy delete per WP:SNOW. Bearian (talk) 14:58, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Weak delete Source found by SoWhy is decent, but not really about the group. More like a person being quoted about something. If it happens a lot, they are notable. Here, it seems to trivial. Hobit (talk) 01:06, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete as spam. The article linked by SoWhy does not appear to be about this site/company, so I don't see how it applies (even if they have a dial-a-quote from someone associated with it). Lankiveil (speak to me) 07:52, 21 March 2009 (UTC).[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was redirect to Teleprompter usage by Barack Obama. this has already been done, in my opinion very appropriately, by Grundle2600, so I'm closing it as a redirect. If anyone wants to, they can re-nominate it. DGG (talk) 03:12, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Teleprompter of the United States[edit]
- Teleprompter of the United States (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
This is just Rush Limbaugh's latest joke, and the article doesn't cite use of this term by anyone other than Limbaugh and some blogs. Add this to the Limbaugh article if you want, but it doesn't merit its own article. NawlinWiki (talk) 15:41, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
While Rush Limbaugh may be at the spearhead of the criticism, the article explores actual media debate about the President's reliance on teleprompters. Neutral language is used throughout, and even criticism (linking to supporters of Obama in the media) of the concept is provided to give a balanced point of view. The print and news media have visited this topic and the two accidents involving teleprompters (see the malfunction section) make this relevant and real. A google search for "TOTUS Obama" yields 17,900 results. This is not a small topic, but a rather developed concept deserving it's own page. Dermus (talk) 15:48, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - WP:NOT a dictionary, a glossary of right-wing blogspeak, or a soapbox. The article's use of language is not altogether neutral - it's effectively a POV fork of material about Obama's rhetoricla style, focussing on one aspect whose importance is itself questionable and the subject of political bias. But in any case, this 'topic' is just a description of the use of language by an opinionated minority - a highly political dicdef. AlexTiefling (talk) 16:23, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Or Merge to Jargon of the Rush Limbaugh Show, which already exists to sweep up this kind of material. AlexTiefling (talk) 17:23, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Support Merge Since an article on Limbaugh jargon already exists, this is a solid proposal. 74.69.39.11 (talk) 18:43, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete- No indication that has any notability seperate from Limbaugh.
I'm even wondering if this would be speediable under G10, as it has the feel of a page created only to disparage a person. Any other thoughts on that?Umbralcorax (talk) 16:46, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- (I've stricken my comment about G10) I gotta be honest too, I'm not too enthused about the sourcing for the article. Three of the references go to Limbaugh's site (one is used twice), one is a youtube link, and one goes to hotair. I think, in addition to the previously stated deletion reasons, I think there might be a whole bunch ofsynthesis and original research going on here as well. Umbralcorax (talk) 20:39, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Mega deleetos Unlike feminazi, it's too long to ever become a popular phrase or even a redirect. Mandsford (talk) 17:13, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Complete WP:NEO and sourced with questionable links. Nate • (chatter) 17:23, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep This is becoming a popular phrase all over, people are talking about it, TOTUS has an official blog and apparently a presidential seal, everyone is talking about this. Also it is being mentioned in both American and Foreign media outlets see http://news.sky.com/skynews/Home/World-News/Barack-Obama-Thanks-Himself-In-Teleprompt-Blunder-During-Address-With-Irish-PM-On-St-Patricks-Day/Article/200903315243932?lpos=World_News_First_Home_Article_Teaser_Region_8&lid=ARTICLE_15243932_Barack_Obama_Thanks_Himself_In_Teleprompt_Blunder_During_Address_With_Irish_PM_On_St_Patricks_Day for example.
—Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.23.146.9 (talk) 18:32, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - The Sky News article does not refer to the 'Teleprompter of the United States' at all; it simply reports that the President made a mistake with a teleprompter. Citing that as evidence for the currency of Rush Limbaugh's political jargon doesn't work. And it's certainly not a popular phrase 'all over'; people here haven't heard of it at all, and don't care. AlexTiefling (talk) 19:23, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I gotta be honest with you. I live here in the states, and this is, quite frankly, the first I've heard of the term. I'm not the most politically aware person in the country, but I consider myself resonably informed. The fact that I've not heard of it until now doesn't bode well for the notability of the phrase. Thats not, and I'm not intending it to be, an argument for deletion, however. Just meant as an observation. Umbralcorax (talk) 20:33, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Yeah it says in there "Mr Obama is an accomplished orator but is becoming known in America as the "teleprompt president" over his reliance on the machine when he gives a speech" and many other article say the same thing, do a news articles search you will find this true.
- Delete as a neologism and joke. WillOakland (talk) 19:22, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Fails WP:N. Wikipedia is not a mirror of everything Limbaugh says. Edison (talk) 19:31, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep' it is not just a rush limbaugh thing just search google and you will see that. You are giving Mr. Limbaugh too much credit for originality if you think he came up with it, he get everything he says from Drudge report anyway. So terribly sorry for not knowing all your fancy bureaucratic WP whatever wiki rules of arguing but this is relevant article to a grass roots phenomenon.
- Merge to Jargon of the Rush Limbaugh Show -Drdisque (talk) 20:00, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete as a silly neologism. Eusebeus (talk) 20:15, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Strong delete - dittohead-only neologism; all the silly Limbaughisms are in Rush's article(s). --Orange Mike | Talk 21:01, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge to Jargon of the Rush Limbaugh Show, Shawn in Montreal (talk) 21:10, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge to Jargon. – PranksterTurtle (talk) 21:16, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete, or merge the neologism on its own is not notable, but a list entry may be suitable. Failing that, delete Sceptre (talk) 21:23, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge to Jargon of the Rush Limbaugh Show -- I actually just looked up TOTUS after I saw the term used, and I was glad that Wikipedia had something helpful. But I agree that it doesn't merit a page of its own--I would have been just as informed if TOTUS had redirected me to the jargon page. -- Narsil (talk) 21:38, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep This subject has gotten extensive coverage form many sources in the mainstream media, completely independent from from Rush Limbaugh's comments. It's possible that the article should be renamed, but it should not be deleted or merged. Grundle2600 (talk) 00:08, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Presidential nicknames a hell of a lot more memorable than this, and which received far more extensive coverage -- The Great Communicator, Slick Willie, Dubya, Tricky Dick, etc. -- are all redirects. This ain't anything special. Mandsford (talk) 01:12, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge into Public image of Barack Obama. Colonel Warden (talk) 00:18, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep made notable by multiple media sources now and although TOTUS is a little bit of a buzzword, this article should be kept to document the President's over-relience on the telepromter and the mistakes made due to this (Irish speech where he thanked himself was well covered in the media) Perry mason (talk) 01:40, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Moved article to Teleprompter usage by Barack Obama[edit]
I did this to save the article from deletion. The main reason that editors are giving for wanting to delete the article is that it's just about what Rush Limbaugh said. That's not true. Many mainstream news sources discussed this topic before Limbaugh started using that phrase. Grundle2600 (talk) 01:03, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Is there anyone here who thinks that other politicians simply recite their speeches from memory? Even as revised, this is simply a variation of the criticism that a public figure (in this case, Barack Obama, but it can apply to anyone you don't like) is "insincere" or "phony". Mandsford (talk) 01:22, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- This isn't about speeches. It's about his use of the device for routine things that other politicians don't use it for, and about how the media, live audiences, photoraphers, and historians have responded to him doing this. Perhaps you only read an early version of the article. But if you read it now, you will see what the article is really about. Grundle2600 (talk) 01:32, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Sources now cited in the article
- The New York Times
- U.S. News & World Report
- Times Online
- The Daily Mail
- The Politico
This subject is notable.
Grundle2600 (talk) 02:59, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was keep. I've read through the discussion, and from what I've observed, the primary arguments for deletion include WP:IINFO, WP:OR, and the fact that the list is too broad in its scope to be a valid article. Original research and vague scope parameters can be addressed through editing, not deletion. Moreover, the list is not indiscriminate; to quote User:Neurolysis, "we can define common misconceptions by what reliable sources are calling common misconceptions". And there are, indeed, reliable sources to be found. As such, there is no consensus for deletion. –Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 19:29, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
List of common misconceptions[edit]
- List of common misconceptions (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
While this page does contain some interesting information, unfortunately it is exactly two of the things that Wikipedia is not: a random collection of information, and a directory. A direct quote from Wikipedia is not a directory: "Wikipedia articles are not: 1. Lists or repositories of loosely associated topics such as (but not limited to) quotations, aphorisms, or persons.". This is precisely the content of this article. Consider these two list items on the page:
1) "The Pilgrims did not dress only in black, nor did they have buckles on their hats or shoes";
2) "Mount Everest (pictured) is, indisputably, the highest point of land above sea level (8,850 meters / 29,035 feet) which, according to traditional measurements, means that it is the tallest mountain in the world."
It is hard to see how these two statements are associated through any particular subject. They are exactly the List. . .of loosely associated topics that is prohibited by what Wikipedia is not. Furthermore, the entire content of the article is these sorts of unrelated facts; no amount of editing could repair this problem. The article should thus be deleted. Any facts of particular interest in the list should be added, as appropriate, to the article on that topic. For example, the first quote above could be added to the article on pilgrims if it is not already there.
A final analogy in favor of deletion: this article is not logically different than an article titled "List of commonly held correct conceptions" or "List of surprising facts": all of these are lists of essentially unrelated information that are subjectively claimed to be related based on an unverifiable claim of knowledge, interest, or lack thereof by some undefined segment of the population. These other examples would probably be deleted without argument; the fact that lists of misconceptions are often grouped together in non-encyclopedic media should not be allowed to bias the essential conclusion that, although interesting, this list is something Wikipedia is not.Locke9k (talk) 15:06, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I agree that according to the rules, this list should go. However, I think that before it is deleted it should have the information transferred to the relevant articles. If the information is inappropriate for the articles, then this page has a place.—Jchthys 15:24, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I agree that the information should be transfered to a related article, where it is appropriate and will improve the quality of the article the information is being transferred to. However, if there are some facts that cannot be added to an associated article in a helpful way, I don't agree that that would justify the existence of this article. If there are some facts that cannot be transferred, we have to ask why that is. Most likely, it is because either the subject of the fact is not notable or because the fact itself is not of sufficient interest or value within the relevant subject. Either way, there is no reason to keep it here. Furthermore, Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information indicates that random information that does not fit into an appropriate article should not just be collected into random information clearinghouses such as this page. Finally, the transfer of info from this page to other pages should not delay deletion of this page. People can just copy this page to their sandbox (the appropriate place to keep random information you haven't decided what to do with yet), and add it to appropriate articles as they have time.Locke9k (talk) 15:33, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Mergeas much as possible as per above--Moloch09 (talk) 15:41, 19 March 2009 (UTC) - after great explanation and advocacy below, change to strong keep[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. Locke9k (talk) 15:28, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Locke9k (talk) 15:28, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. Locke9k (talk) 15:28, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Religion-related deletion discussions. Locke9k (talk) 15:28, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. Locke9k (talk) 15:28, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. Locke9k (talk) 15:28, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. Locke9k (talk) 15:28, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nom, if sourced snippets can find their ways into articles fine. But, misconceptions come in all sorts and which are "common" is debatable. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 15:47, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Do not leave in this form It's mostly well sourced, but there's no clear guidelines for what gets included or excluded. It could be merged into the articles most germane to the misconceptions, but that loses the visibility. Maybe it could be broken into topic-based articles ("List of common misconceptions in religion") of manageable size, with this article remaining a list-of-lists? Maybe a category "common misconceptions" would be better, breaking the individual notable/verifiable bullets into their own stub articles. I don't think this information should be deleted from the encyclopedia, but I agree with the nom that it should not continue to exist in this form. Jclemens (talk) 16:10, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge per Moloch09 and nom. AlexTiefling (talk) 16:25, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. This article should be up for FA, not AfD. This is one of the best-written, well-sourced collection of scientific and historical common misconceptions. While the individual facts can be gathered, labouriously, from the individual topics mentioned, no "Category:Common_misconception" will ever be able to arrange and present them in a useful way. This article is a gold mine to every history of science researcher. Owen× ☎ 16:28, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Question - What, exactly, have false beliefs about the hats of Puritan immigrants into North America got to do with the history of science? Whilst these are important facts, the commonality of the misconceptions about them do not appear to be well-sourced. Take, for example, the very first source, for the very first fact, about gunpowder. The source relates, albeit in a slightly quirky manner, the facts as I understand them relating to the history of this technology. However, it does not support the article's assertion that there is a common misconception to the effect that Europeans were the first to make military use of gunpowder. The same problem exists with many of the 'misconceptions' listed; the facts are related correctly, but the existence of the misconception is unsourced and highly debatable. To a sociology researcher, it's useless. AlexTiefling (talk) 16:56, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. This is useful information. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 16:41, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Response - The San Francisco telephone directory is useful, but we don't keep that here. AlexTiefling (talk) 16:56, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Further Response: Usefullness is not sufficient to justify inclusion in Wikipedia. A how-to manual for fixing my toilet, for example, is also useful. However, it does not belong in Wikipedia, because Wikipedia is not a manual. There are other Wikimedia pages for that. The same goes for this.
72.177.53.89 (talk) 18:01, 19 March 2009 (UTC)Locke9k (talk) 19:00, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Locke9k's Sockpuppet? Locke9k already posted the same thing on the talkpage. --Armchair info guy (talk • contribs) 18:09, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- My apologies - I accidentally wrote the above statement while signed out. Apparently my computer had signed out of Wikipedia without my realizing it. I'll resign with my correct signed in signature. Locke9k (talk) 19:00, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks for clearing that up. --Armchair info guy (talk) 19:11, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- My apologies - I accidentally wrote the above statement while signed out. Apparently my computer had signed out of Wikipedia without my realizing it. I'll resign with my correct signed in signature. Locke9k (talk) 19:00, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Locke9k's Sockpuppet? Locke9k already posted the same thing on the talkpage. --Armchair info guy (talk • contribs) 18:09, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Further Response: Usefullness is not sufficient to justify inclusion in Wikipedia. A how-to manual for fixing my toilet, for example, is also useful. However, it does not belong in Wikipedia, because Wikipedia is not a manual. There are other Wikimedia pages for that. The same goes for this.
- Keep. It's an atypical article, but it's still an asset to the encyclopedia. The criteria for what items get included on the list could be made more definite, and the sourcing improved, but that's about it. WP:NOTDIR is there to keep material with no encyclopedic value out of the encyclopedia -- this list does not qualify -- and WP:INDISCRIMINATE is not a deletion catch-all. Claiming that an article is "indiscriminate, delete" is a non-rationale and an abuse of the AfD process, as far as I'm concerned.--Father Goose (talk) 16:50, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Question - what authoritative source could be used to demonstrate the relative commonality of false beliefs, worldwide? AlexTiefling (talk) 16:56, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- A reasonable way to address this would be to require that a source be provided with each entry that actually identifies it as a misconception. "Common" is a poor choice of titles; "notable" would be more to the point, though maybe "noted" would be best of all: "List of misconceptions [that reliable sources have actually noted as misconceptions]"--Father Goose (talk) 17:07, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Response: What do you mean that WP:INDISCRIMINATE is not a catchall? This is not a particularly broad use of WP:INDISCRIMINATE. This is exactly what is described in WP:INDISCRIMINATE and WP:NOTDIR. Its not different than a list of quotes. How could a list of facts be more unrelated than this one? Would you then be ok with a "list of common correct conceptions"? Locke9k (talk) 18:06, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- WP:INDISCRIMINATE does not have any language to that effect. It's no more meaningful to call something "indiscriminate" than it is to call it "unencyclopedic". Articles in general and lists in particular do need some kind of discriminating criterion to be something other than an unsorted list (the kind discouraged by Wikipedia:Trivia sections). This particular list article could use a more stringent discriminating criterion, to keep questionable entries out, but overall, it's a good article.--Father Goose (talk) 20:16, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Sorry, it doesn't have any language to what effect? I may have missed your point. What do you mean its not meaningful to call something "indiscriminate". That is a description exactly laid out in WP:INDISCRIMINATE. In fact it means quite a lot to call something that. Furthermore, WP:DIRECTORY explicitly speaks against lists such as (but not limited to) quotations, aphorisms, or persons (real or fictional). I am arguing that both of these policies clearly exclude this article from what Wikipedia is. Its incumbent upon those who want to keep this page to show how this is both a discriminate collection of information and not equivalent to one of the things listed under WP:DIRECTORY. We have made several arguments to the effect that the article is excluded by these policies. Simply responding vaguely that the article is "Useful", "Interesting", or 'makes Wikipedia a better place' doesn't really address any of these policy arguments. Locke9k (talk) 22:14, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep, but maybe not in this form. I don't know which policies to cite, so I'll just give you my reasoning. First, the premise of the article-- debunking popular misconceptions-- is encyclopedic. Second, a large part of the list is sourced, and the rest of it can be. Third, a list like this is a better format than trying to use a category to accomplish the same thing. Now, here are the problems I see with this list. First, what are the criteria for inclusion? How do we define "common" misconception? Second, misconceptions are tightly tied to culture. In the US, we often think that you lose a disproportionate amount of heat via the head (you don't), but in areas of South and Central America, people think you lose a disproportionate amount of heat via the feet, not the head. In Mexico, many people have the misconception that you should cover your mouth when you go outside at night because the cold air will make you sick. In Korea they think that leaving a fan on all night will cause you to dehydrate and die. etc. So we need some well-defined criteria for inclusion, including defining what is common and marking what culture the misconception comes from. The list has a misconception about gunpowder, which is obviously a western misconception and is not shared by the Chinese. — LinguistAtLarge • Talk 16:57, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Second thoughts further to Appleyard and Father Goose have checked sources and yes, these are from creditable and diverse sources. The problem is the title. Common misconceptions makes it seem these are common corrections too (a la QI Book of General Ignorance). Some rescue needed. Some retitling too. Will ponder--Moloch09 (talk) 17:00, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- delete -I saw this the other week. List which is unmaintainable, could probably contain hundreds of these misconceptions many of which are WP:OR. Sources do exist but numerous things have been called a misconception in reliable sources. Giving the solutions in the article is essay-like. No, debunking popular misconceptions is not the role of an encyclopedia- unless it's an "encyclopedia of popular misconceptions." We deal with specific topics themselves, not this sort of overarching meta topic of a specific type. These misconceptions are not notable enough themselves to be in a list- otherwise they'd have their own specific articles devoted to the misconception. It is atypical because it's not what we do. If it's going to be a list, shrink to be solely a list and contain only those misconceptions worth their own article. And I still think it's unmaintainable and what's left in or out impossible to decide upon. Sticky Parkin 17:11, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep with a limit for those statements that are sourced to published works that describe misconceptions. People will differ on their views of what an encyclopedia should be, but I think that the main goal of an encyclopedia is that it should be a reliable reference-- and one of the strengths of Wikipedia is that it can be updated instantly by editors who spot and remove untrue information from its pages. For all its criticisms, Wikipedia is the place people turn to when they ask the question "Is that really true?" Mandsford (talk) 17:24, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- A fair point; but if someone wants to know whether Christopher Columbus thought the earth was flat, aren't they going to go to Christopher Columbus, flat earth or discovery of America, and not to this article? AlexTiefling (talk) 17:26, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- It's likely they would, if they were looking for Columbus specifically; on the other hand, if the flat earth topic led to an interest in other historical myths (and that's basically what these are), they would search for a category or a list, depending on which research method they were comfortable with. Mandsford (talk) 01:07, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Mandsford - Thats a fair point. Perhaps it would be more appropriate to have a page specifically about modern historical mythology, for example. This might or might not be best done as a list; I'm not sure. It would, however, probably have a clear subject area and would probably satisfy many of the issues raised here. Locke9k (talk) 02:18, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Response: I agree with AlexTiefling here. Whats more, why are we having a debate about whether this material is insteresting or useful? Its a straw man argument. No one here is arguing that it is uninteresting or not useful. We also don't have to have a wide ranging debate about what 'an encyclopedia should be'; we only have to address this issue of what Wikipedia is and whether this is consistent with that definition. The issue of what Wikipedia is is already set by the five pillars and policies and guidelines. In this case, Wikipedia is not a random collection of information, and Wikipedia is not a directory. Whether we personally think it is valuable is not relevant. The point is that Wikipedia has policies that specifically exclude this sort of thing from allowable content irregardless of whether it is interesting or useful. Locke9k (talk) 18:15, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The question of what Wikipedia "is" and what it "should be" are one and the same: we who edit Wikipedia determine what it should be, and consequently what it is. An article like this brings up questions of "what Wikipedia should be", though to me, it's not a terribly difficult question to answer in this case: Wikipedia is a better encyclopedia with this article than without it.
List articles are easy targets for deletion, if one adopts a rigid interpretation of WP:NOTDIR, even if the deletion of said article would be a detriment to the encyclopedia. The value of this article in particular is not to redundantly store facts found elsewhere in the encyclopedia, but to compile related information that would not be encountered by someone randomly browsing the encyclopedia. The relation of these facts to each other -- common misconceptions -- is not as hard-edged as some lists, such as Rivers in New Jersey, but not so indiscriminate that it has no place in the encyclopedia. It could be more discriminating, yes: I've been watching the article for a while and the question of "what qualifies as a common misconception" could be more rigorously answered. However, I do not accept the assertion that it is impossible to answer that question via reliable sources. Nor do I accept that the article should be deleted instead of simply trying to tighten its discriminating criterion. The bottom line is that Wikipedia has some quirky articles that are nonetheless an asset to the encyclopedia. Trying to have them deleted because there's some rule somewhere that can be narrowly interpreted to suggest that "this article is illegal" is foolishness to me. Our rules don't do our thinking for us.--Father Goose (talk) 21:22, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Wow, just wow! Thanks for sharing your wisdom on this matter, Father Goose. You masterfully articulated not only why this article should be kept, but the essence of what wikipedia is and should be. (And I'm not writing this just because we agree on this issue. I genuinely did enjoy reading it.) --Armchair info guy (talk) 21:43, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Father Goose, I contest your assertion that the argument for deletion here is "a rigid interpretation of WP:NOTDIR". An exact quotation from this section of what Wikipedia is not is "Lists or repositories of loosely associated topics such as (but not limited to) quotations, aphorisms, or persons (real or fictional)". This article is very close in spirit and practice to a list of aphorisms. It really only takes a fairly narrow and weak interpretation of this policy to conclude that this article does not belong in Wikipedia. I will note the fact that this article includes sections on History, Politics, Cooking, Law, Science, Religion, Technology, Sports, and Other, most with their own subsections. With such a broad scope that appears to randomly touch on widely dispersed areas over all human knowledge, how can you argue that this does not violate the prohibition against directories and indiscriminate collections of information? Its hard to see how an article could be more of an indiscriminate collection than this one. This is exactly the kind of article that this policy covers. It seems to me that you are basically arguing that we should ignore the policy in this case because you feel that the article is useful. From my perspective, that is an inadequate justification. The correct approach would be to push to change the policy on excluding directories and indiscriminate collections of information rather than attempting to override them by 'jury nullification'.Locke9k (talk) 22:01, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Indeed, this case makes clear that some policy tweaking is in order. In fact, just about an hour ago, I rewrote the first point of WP:NOTDIR to better match what I understand to be communal practice regarding lists. What was there before was in many ways inaccurate or unclear: we do indeed have hundreds of lists of persons, and even some of aphorisms that are perfectly well suited to an encyclopedia -- for instance, List of Latin phrases (which was pretty resoundingly "kept" at two prior AfDs). And furthermore, the policy did a really poor job of explaining what we use lists for on Wikipedia, and why. I hope you agree with much, if not all, of the rewrite; if not, you can always tweak it further, or revert and discuss.
You are also exactly right that I assert that we should ignore policies when they get things wrong: in fact, we have a policy that counsels us to do just that. And for a very good reason: policy must reflect consensus, not the other way around.--Father Goose (talk) 07:23, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Indeed, this case makes clear that some policy tweaking is in order. In fact, just about an hour ago, I rewrote the first point of WP:NOTDIR to better match what I understand to be communal practice regarding lists. What was there before was in many ways inaccurate or unclear: we do indeed have hundreds of lists of persons, and even some of aphorisms that are perfectly well suited to an encyclopedia -- for instance, List of Latin phrases (which was pretty resoundingly "kept" at two prior AfDs). And furthermore, the policy did a really poor job of explaining what we use lists for on Wikipedia, and why. I hope you agree with much, if not all, of the rewrite; if not, you can always tweak it further, or revert and discuss.
- The question of what Wikipedia "is" and what it "should be" are one and the same: we who edit Wikipedia determine what it should be, and consequently what it is. An article like this brings up questions of "what Wikipedia should be", though to me, it's not a terribly difficult question to answer in this case: Wikipedia is a better encyclopedia with this article than without it.
- It's likely they would, if they were looking for Columbus specifically; on the other hand, if the flat earth topic led to an interest in other historical myths (and that's basically what these are), they would search for a category or a list, depending on which research method they were comfortable with. Mandsford (talk) 01:07, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep Why is this up for AfD instead of FA? T-95 (talk) 17:49, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Response: For the reasons listed in the nomination: it is the exact sort of thing meant to be excluded by Wikipedia is not a random collection of information, and Wikipedia is not a directory. Locke9k (talk) 18:08, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep for the reasons Mandsford gave and the fact that I've LEARNED some useful info I otherwise wouldn't have if this article wasn't the way it is now. --Armchair info guy (talk) 18:02, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Question: Could you suggest Wikimedia site where perhaps this could be moved? That way it could be kept available online somewhere without the Wikipedia community essentially overriding Wikipedia policy. I would personally enjoy having a place where I could read this nice compilation of information, I just don't think Wikipedia can be the place.Locke9k (talk) 19:23, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Nope, it belongs right where it is now. Gets an average of over 1,000 pageviews a day so plenty of folks out there like me and the others voting "Keep" value it as is. I don't mean any disrespect, but I think perhaps you are losing perspective of the big picture and just how many English-speakers all around the world value useful info at wikipedia. No other wiki comes close. Just how it is, and valued pages like this one should be kept. --Armchair info guy (talk) 21:07, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- When the Wikipedia community overrides policy, that means by definition that the policy is wrong (either broadly or just applied to a specific case). All policies must outline a consensus position. If there's consensus to not apply a policy, it's the consensus that's correct, not the policy.
Since you yourself don't dislike the content of this article, and wouldn't want to see it deleted, and don't have a suggestion at hand of where to transfer it so that it doesn't get deleted, trying to get it deleted simply because it "breaks a rule" (which is debatable anyway) is thoroughly wrong-headed.--Father Goose (talk) 20:54, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Father Goose, just because I think that an article is useful doesn't mean I think it belongs in Wikipedia. There are lots of things that I would like to be available somewhere on the internet that I don't think belong in Wikipedia. My previous point was that I would be interested in a Website that included this list, not that I don't want to see this article deleted. In fact, I do want to see it deleted within Wikipedia, because I think it is an indiscriminate collection of information that is not encyclopedic and violates one of the core principles of what Wikipedia is. It doesn't just "break a rule", it is an extension of Wikipedia into one of the things it is not as laid out in the five pillars. Finally, just because a bunch of people like this article doesn't mean that there is a "consensus" to overturn or change any part of Wikipedia:What_Wikipedia_is_not. If you really believe that such a consensus exists, you should suggest a policy change so that we can truly see what the community consensus is, rather than selectively overriding the policy because some proponents of an article think its a good idea. Locke9k (talk) 22:07, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Suggestion - Go and read WP:USEFUL, please. It's, er, a common misconception that an article's utility has a bearing on its survival. AlexTiefling (talk) 19:28, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. I don’t think the article resembles San Francisco telephone directory and it is not a indiscriminate list as well. All the list items have something in common that they are misconceptions! Salih (talk) 18:59, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Response: Why is having in common that they are misconceptions any more of a unifying subject then if I were to claim that a list was of "conceptions"? Can I then create an article called "Things people think"? I also don't think that this article resembles a telephone directory: it more closely resembles a list of aphorisms, one of the things that is expressly prohibited by Wikipedia is not a directory. I understand that the wording of this policy on its face makes it sounds like only "directories" are included, but please look at the list of things and corresponding examples covered by this policy and see if it changes your mind. Locke9k (talk) 19:07, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Additional response - I still maintain that as well as being indiscriminate, this article in no way justifies that the mistakes it seeks to correct are common mistakes, or that they are commonly reified as misconceptions. There are an infinite number of ways to be wrong; who says these wrong things are notable? AlexTiefling (talk) 19:28, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Split into separate articles, such as (for example) List of common history-related misconceptions, List of common law-related misconceptions, etc., turning this page into either a disambiguation page or a category. That way, the facts in each article will be more closely related, alleviating (or nearly alleviating) the WP:INDISCRIMINATE problem. I also agree that a more narrow set of criteria for what constitutes a "common misconception" should be defined.--Unscented (talk) 19:48, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete while the information contained in this article is decent and well-cited, the criteria for inclusion in this article is nearly completely arbitrary (ie what is a "common" misconception and what truly construes a "misconception"), making it an indiscriminate list, similar to what List of commonly liked foods or List of common things you'd find in a subway station. -Drdisque (talk) 20:07, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete All of this information is available elsewhere, so worries over content loss are needless. And this is a poster child for a largely indiscriminate collection of information and is patently unencyclopedic. Also, frankly, it borders on WP:TRIVIA. Eusebeus (talk) 20:18, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Strong keep. An extremely interesting and informative article, collecting together a lot of information of a particularly important kind. I would like to see better sourcing of the fact that the misconceptions documented are common (many of them only document that they are misconceptions without any form of attestation of their commonness), but this should be possible for many of them, and others can be removed as necessary. JulesH (talk) 20:50, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Suggestion for focusing the article "Common" is admittedly gauzy. Better wording is possible: "notable", "noted", maybe even "oft-noted", with the stipulation that every "misconception" on the list must be noted by at least two sources. (And noted in the sources specifically as a misconception, though not necessarily using that exact word.)--Father Goose (talk) 21:33, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. It is not a random list, nor is it a directory. That said, it needs work. Firstly we need to insist on notabliliy, the misconception must be widespread and not limited to a small industry group or special intrest group. Secondly, proof that it is a misconception (a misconception can be wrong too) must be added, with at least 2 references. But there is still a dispute, it should be removed until settled. (We're not Mythbusters or Snopes). Thirdly, I think it should be split in to History, Sport, Geopgraphy, etc. --Dmol (talk) 22:18, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: Please note that the things covered under WP:DIRECTORY include, for example, "quotations, aphorisms, or persons". I am not arguing that this is literally a 'directory' but rather that it is one of the things that falls under the (poorly named) policy WP:DIRECTORY. In particular, this is very similar to a list of aphorisms. Locke9k (talk) 22:24, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. When I read the article, I thought this nomination had to be a joke of some kind. The article is excellent—well-sourced, NPOV, informative, beautifully-written and all kinds of fun. Re: directories—all lists serve as directories. All categories also serve as directories. They're good ways of organising and grouping information to make it easier to find. Wikipedia can and should contain directories in list form of content that Wikipedia covers, and any rule that says otherwise needs to be taken outside and summarily shot.—S Marshall Talk/Cont 23:19, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Response If you feel that way then you should go and propose a change to WP:DIRECTORY so that the entire community can debate that policy, rather than just going around trying to nullify the guideline on a case by case basis. Locke9k (talk) 23:39, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I'll be the judge of what I should do, Locke9k.—S Marshall Talk/Cont 23:59, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. It seems common sense to me that this article is a useful part of an encyclopedia. XenonEngine (talk) 00:39, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per all other delete votes above. This is a directory of (basically) indiscriminate information.—Jchthys 00:47, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]- I’m rethinking my position. This page doesn’t really do any harm, as long as the ‘misconceptions’ are agreed on all hands; that is, that anyone should be convinced of them. (For example, no ‘misconception’ such as ‘Jesus was/was not an historical person’ has no place.) The article probably does need a little cleanup, but there’s no point really throwing out the entire article—I find it quite useful for an encyclopædia to have.—Jchthys 21:43, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Strong Keep This is a great article; and don't we have rules that if there is a great article, well written, well sourced, that all other arguments are null? Ks64q2 (talk) 02:15, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Response: Usually, but only if the material is part of what Wikipedia is. For example, a great, well written, well sourced list of quotes would not be kept in Wikipedia; it would be moved to Wikiquotes. Similarly, an amazing news article or how-to manuals also wouldn't be kept. If an article is something Wikipedia is Not then its quality is beside the point. Locke9k (talk) 02:23, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Weak Delete per list guidelines. This list is just far too broad in scope, it's already too long imo and has the potential to be infinite in length. Of course a split might work. The idea of 'misconception' is worrying, all we are essentially talking about is differing POVs, so is suggestng that one is a 'misconception' non-neutral? It seems a number of the entries are based on alot of synthesis with no evidence of misconceptions being common at all.--neon white talk 08:42, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. This is not a directory of indiscriminate information. Personally, I think it is very useful. This is exactly the same thing wikipedia is for: helping the user.Teeninvestor (talk) 12:26, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. The information list popular misconceptions, and corrects them. Fascinating. Does WP:IAR apply here? I think it does. This adds to the wikipedia greatly. Dream Focus 13:11, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. Agree that WP:IAR applies here for the interest value of the article. -- Necrothesp (talk) 14:46, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete (with any appropriate merging of content to respective articles) due to the fact that the qualities of associating what is a "common misconception" is not well shown on this list. Some sources that are given do assert that "Fact X is a common misconception"... and limiting it to those would be fine, in much the same way List of Internet phenomena requires an RS that asserts popularity to include on the list. But there's several entries here that lack any source, or in the spot checks of sources for that are there, do not seem to assert the fact as a misconception. Furthermore, there's no potential bound on this list, as there are lots of potential misconception facts. The list might be worthwhile on another Mediawiki sister project (which one, I don't know) but because the list membership is vague and can be indiscriminate, is not appropriate. --MASEM (t) 16:38, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete as fails WP:TRIVIA and WP:NOTDIRECTORY. I agree with Masem, as "common misconceptions" are not defined; most of this radom trivia is somewhat uncommon in my view. This list might make an interesting "factoid" on the back of a cereal box, but it is a common misconception that this type of list has any encyclopedic value. --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 16:45, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Well, Gavin, what's "encyclopaedic value"? Surely something that contributes to the purpose of an encyclopaedia. What's the purpose of an encyclopaedia? To encapsulate human knowledge; to filter it for brevity and clarity; and to collect information in a way that's easy to find; and to help readers educate themselves. I think this article does that admirably.—S Marshall Talk/Cont 17:24, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I think you already know - there has to be some form of context, which a list of "factoids" does not provide. How would you feel if there was a List of common misconceptions about S. Marshall? If there is no context provided, how would you know what is a misconception and what is urban myth? The answer is you don't know. I concede that this list has entertainment value, but it seems to me most of the support in favour of keeping it are actually thinly veiled arguements along the lines WP:ILIKEIT. --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 20:09, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I rather think they're not-at-all veiled arguments along the lines of WP:IAR. I maintain there's sufficient context for encyclopaedic value, but accept your good faith position is otherwise. (I did try making an article called List of common misconceptions about S. Marshall; it lasted less than 60 seconds.)—S Marshall Talk/Cont 02:17, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I think you already know - there has to be some form of context, which a list of "factoids" does not provide. How would you feel if there was a List of common misconceptions about S. Marshall? If there is no context provided, how would you know what is a misconception and what is urban myth? The answer is you don't know. I concede that this list has entertainment value, but it seems to me most of the support in favour of keeping it are actually thinly veiled arguements along the lines WP:ILIKEIT. --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 20:09, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Well, Gavin, what's "encyclopaedic value"? Surely something that contributes to the purpose of an encyclopaedia. What's the purpose of an encyclopaedia? To encapsulate human knowledge; to filter it for brevity and clarity; and to collect information in a way that's easy to find; and to help readers educate themselves. I think this article does that admirably.—S Marshall Talk/Cont 17:24, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete it's basically indiscriminate and impossible to categorize. I also agree that it's a list of trivia. What's the bar for a "common" misconception, for instance? How many people must hold the mistaken belief for it to be included here? What about all of the "misconceptions" that were common at one time or another but have been corrected by science and reason. I commend whoever did the work on it; it's handsome enough with some fun bits, but not the stuff of which encyclopedias are built.Bali ultimate (talk) 17:48, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Speedy/strong keep per WP:LISTS as it is a list of discriminate, useful, interesting, verifiable, important, and encyclopedic information that gets over 20,000 page views a month. The article serves a great purpose as a spinoff or sub-article to our coverage of misconceptions by illustrating examples, much as an encyclopedia or almanac article on a country lists cities with that country or on the Academy Awards lists award winners for illustrative purposes. The article also serves a navigational function as a means for those interested in these common misconceptions of having a gateway to our other articles that deal with the reality of the items listed. In any event, it is what editors and readers come to Wikipedia for and is thus consistent with what Wikipedia is. Calling it "indiscriminate" is patently dishonest as it is clearly discriminate, i.e. only miconceptions and only miconceptions that are common and on top of that only miconceptions that are common as verified through reliable sources per WP:RS. Calling it "trivia" is pure subjectivity as it concerns items that are studied and discussed by millions of people throughout history and in many diverse fields. Dismissing their academic interest is trivial borders on insulting. Some calls to delete and merge should be reminded per Wikipedia:Merge and delete that we cannot delete and merge per the GFDL. Thus, no reasons beyond WP:IDONTLIKEIT has been presented for deletion. Any appearance of policy are guideline based reasons are and have been easily refuted. The truth is that the article clearly meets all of our policies and guidelines with flying colors. Sincerely, --A NobodyMy talk 17:58, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep with all due haste Contrary to many delete "votes", this meets the requirements of WP:LISTS and its inclusion improves wikipedia and its servicibility to all readres. I see some editors are confused, so help fix it.... not delete such a worthy article. Any disagreement with style can be addressed on the articles talk page and through WP:CLEANUP. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 18:12, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep The topic is neither random nor a directory. The relevant policy is WP:NOTLAW which forbids a fussy insistence on following rules rather than considering the quality of the topic. Of course, there is scope for refinement and other improvements but this will not be achieved by deletion. Colonel Warden (talk) 18:37, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Fails WP:NOT#INFO. Inherently a list of trivia. Also, those calling above for this to be taken to WP:FLC should be aware that this is not even remotely close to FL-quality. — sephiroth bcr (converse) 18:48, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Then please improve it to make it featured quality. Best, --A NobodyMy talk 19:08, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Uh, no. I have zero obligation to do so. In addition if you were even remotely aware of the FLC process (which you're not in any fashion and I am) you would realize that it would be a crapload of work, would probably fail FLC for the same reasons brought up during this AfD, and ultimately would be pointless. So stop spouting lame requests when you have absolutely no idea what they entail. — sephiroth bcr (converse) 19:19, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Just because you don't like it and don't want to work on it is not a valid reason to prevent others from improving it as they obviously can. Sincerely, --A NobodyMy talk 19:21, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- So you ignore the substance of my post entirely and go back to one of your staple arguments. Typical. — sephiroth bcr (converse) 19:24, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The bottom line is that neither you, nor anyone else, have provided any actually valid reasons for redlinking this improveable article. Whether or not it can be a featured list doesn't matter. The whole point of having featured lists is that they are exceptional. If everything was featured then, why call them featured? The article is if nothing else "good enough" and for those who don't like it or don't want to work on it, they can and should ignore it and work on what they are interested in as this verifiable and notable subject is relevant to many of their colleagues. Sincerely, --A NobodyMy talk 19:27, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Actually we have provided multiple valid arguments referencing Wikipedia policies and explaining why they apply in this case. And in point of fact, Sephiroth above is not mainly making the point that it is nt FA quality, he mainly makes the point that is is "inherently a list of trivia". That is a valid reason, under Wikipedia policy, to delete. We are saying that this article cannot be made acceptable because by definition it is inherently something wikipedia is not.Locke9k (talk) 15:49, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Any rationales for deletion have been discounted as they are not subtantiated by the actually text contained within the policies and guidelines. This list is inherently encyclopedic and is a valid reason under Wikipedia policy to keep. This article is acceptable because by definition it is inherently something that Wikipedia is. Sincerely, --A NobodyMy talk 18:28, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Actually we have provided multiple valid arguments referencing Wikipedia policies and explaining why they apply in this case. And in point of fact, Sephiroth above is not mainly making the point that it is nt FA quality, he mainly makes the point that is is "inherently a list of trivia". That is a valid reason, under Wikipedia policy, to delete. We are saying that this article cannot be made acceptable because by definition it is inherently something wikipedia is not.Locke9k (talk) 15:49, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The bottom line is that neither you, nor anyone else, have provided any actually valid reasons for redlinking this improveable article. Whether or not it can be a featured list doesn't matter. The whole point of having featured lists is that they are exceptional. If everything was featured then, why call them featured? The article is if nothing else "good enough" and for those who don't like it or don't want to work on it, they can and should ignore it and work on what they are interested in as this verifiable and notable subject is relevant to many of their colleagues. Sincerely, --A NobodyMy talk 19:27, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- So you ignore the substance of my post entirely and go back to one of your staple arguments. Typical. — sephiroth bcr (converse) 19:24, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Just because you don't like it and don't want to work on it is not a valid reason to prevent others from improving it as they obviously can. Sincerely, --A NobodyMy talk 19:21, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Uh, no. I have zero obligation to do so. In addition if you were even remotely aware of the FLC process (which you're not in any fashion and I am) you would realize that it would be a crapload of work, would probably fail FLC for the same reasons brought up during this AfD, and ultimately would be pointless. So stop spouting lame requests when you have absolutely no idea what they entail. — sephiroth bcr (converse) 19:19, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Then please improve it to make it featured quality. Best, --A NobodyMy talk 19:08, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep The article is factual in a way that a list of selected aphorisms could not be. There are also many published books on the specific topic, worded variously as "widespread misconceptions" or "modern myths". Sure, the criteria can and should be tightened, and maybe the article name should be changed, but the concept is recognized and notable. Kestenbaum (talk) 18:51, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Response: Lists of aphorisms are not excluded due to limits on how factual they can be. They are excluded because the kind of content is inherently unencyclopedic. That is pretty clear in WP:NOT. The fact that there are many books doesn't help the situation. There are also many how-to books, yet how-to content is not allowed in Wikipedia because it is one of the things that Wikipedia is expressly not.Locke9k (talk) 19:10, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- This list is not a how to, however, which is why it passed what Wikipedia is. Best, --A NobodyMy talk 19:12, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- That was just one example of things wikipedia is not. The point is that just because there is a book on something doesnt mean it should be part of an encyclopedia. This particular article fails on Wikipedia is not a directory and Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information.Locke9k (talk) 19:22, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Strong Delete Massive violation of core WP:NOT policy. The topic is way too broad for any meaningful encyclopedic coverage. And, frankly, anyone who doesn't get that would be better off leaving Wikipedia to create Triviapedia.org or Wikilistomania.org or something that would be more in line with their goals. DreamGuy (talk) 19:06, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- It is consistent with Wikipedia:Five pillars (notability to a real-world audience, unoriginal research, consistent with a “specialized encyclopedia” concerning verifiable topics with importance in the real world). Thus, it meets our core policy while failing none of them. Sincerely, --A NobodyMy talk 19:08, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- You can't say it fails none when it fails WP:NOT and WP:ENC. And the claim that it's consistent with a specialized encyclopedia is just nonsense anyway. No encyclopedia, specialized or otherwise, works this way. DreamGuy (talk) 19:12, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I can because it passes both. Saying it is not encyclopedic is nonsense, because many specialized encyclopedias and almanacs typically contain such lists of this nature and it is essentially what Wikipedia is, which is why there is no valid policy based reason for deletion. Sincerely, --A NobodyMy talk 19:14, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- What encyclopedia is a list of common misconceptions? There are books that are lists of common misconceptions, but they are trivia books and not encyclopedias. Also comparing this to a specialized encyclopedia seems particularly inappropriate considering the absurd breadth of this article. It has sections on law, science, history, and cooking, among many others, and you are claiming it is specialized?Locke9k (talk) 19:18, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- All of these encyclopedias cover common misconceptions. Sincerely, --A NobodyMy talk 19:21, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks you for making that point. Actually it appears to support my argument. These encyclopedias address misconceptions within the text of the appropriate subject. They do not contain indiscriminate lists of misconceptions out of context at the end of the book. What I am proposing is exactly that. Someone should move this material to their sandbox and add it on a line by line basis to the appropriate article in cases where it improves that article.Locke9k (talk) 20:24, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- All of these encyclopedias cover common misconceptions. Sincerely, --A NobodyMy talk 19:21, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The information is encyclopedic where it is noted that a fact is a common misconception on the article on that topic, but this as a standalone list, without strong entry requirements, is not an encyclopedic presentation of the information, as it could allow for any trivial misconception (for example, where is the "Kiss this guy" misheard lyric? That's a misconception....) --MASEM (t) 19:20, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- It is a wikipedic presentation. :) Best, --A NobodyMy talk 19:22, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- There is an Encyclopedia of Popular Misconceptions. The assertion that such works do not exist is therefore false. Colonel Warden (talk) 19:26, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Simply because this calls itself an encyclopedia doesn't mean it is one. It looks to me like a trivia book that has in a tongue in cheek or salesmanship way called itself an encyclopedia. The question is whether by the Wikipedia definition of encyclopedic, this sort of list fits the definition. I would argue that it does not.Locke9k (talk) 20:30, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- What encyclopedia is a list of common misconceptions? There are books that are lists of common misconceptions, but they are trivia books and not encyclopedias. Also comparing this to a specialized encyclopedia seems particularly inappropriate considering the absurd breadth of this article. It has sections on law, science, history, and cooking, among many others, and you are claiming it is specialized?Locke9k (talk) 19:18, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I can because it passes both. Saying it is not encyclopedic is nonsense, because many specialized encyclopedias and almanacs typically contain such lists of this nature and it is essentially what Wikipedia is, which is why there is no valid policy based reason for deletion. Sincerely, --A NobodyMy talk 19:14, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- You can't say it fails none when it fails WP:NOT and WP:ENC. And the claim that it's consistent with a specialized encyclopedia is just nonsense anyway. No encyclopedia, specialized or otherwise, works this way. DreamGuy (talk) 19:12, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- It is consistent with Wikipedia:Five pillars (notability to a real-world audience, unoriginal research, consistent with a “specialized encyclopedia” concerning verifiable topics with importance in the real world). Thus, it meets our core policy while failing none of them. Sincerely, --A NobodyMy talk 19:08, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Please see No true Scotsman. Colonel Warden (talk) 22:15, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep and cleanup AFD is not cleanup, if there are extraneous items on the page, remove them! I think we should trim entries without citations and ones whose citations don't explicitly mention the fact that it's a common misconception.--Ipatrol (talk) 19:16, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Deleteor whatever is compatible with the GFDL - the sourced information is fine, but there is no encyclopedic reason to organize it like this. Note: I worked on this article for a little while some time ago, but decided that it is unmaintainable. - Eldereft (cont.) 19:19, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]- STRONG KEEP Nomination is flawed. Nominator states: Wikipedia is not a random collection of information. The 5 criteria under that section are: 1. Frequently Asked Questions. 2. Plot summaries. 3. Lyrics databases. 4. Statistics. and 5. News reports. This article is neither. This is another case of misunderstanding of wikipolicy to delete a well referenced article. Ikip (talk) 19:25, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Response: Actually I brought up two points. Wikipedia is not a random collection of information is only one of them. The other is Wikipedia is not a directory, and if you look at the text of that it is clearly meant to cover things like this. Also Wikipedia is not a random collection of information is not necessarily limited to just those things. If I just make a list of fact that have been deleted from other articles that is clearly a nondiscriminate collection of info even though it isnt on that list. Locke9k (talk) 19:31, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- This article is not a directory, but a list of encyclopedic and verifiable subjects. A directory is a phone book. This is not presented in a phone book style, but with section headings and paragraphs contained within. Sincerely, --A NobodyMy talk 19:33, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- As I mentioned, the (poorly named) policy WP:DIRECTORY actually includes things than in laymans terms are not a directory. The relevant subpoint is "Lists or repositories of loosely associated topics such as (but not limited to) quotations, aphorisms, or persons". I am not arguing that this page is literally a "directory" but simply that it is one of the items excluded under the policy called WP:DIRECTORY. Please take a look at the set of things discussed on that page under this policy - as I said its poorly named and you might be surprised. Locke9k (talk) 20:36, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- It clearly passes that page. Sincerely, --A NobodyMy talk 04:11, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- It doesn't help to make those sorts of bald assertions with no justification. It apparently is not 'clear' that is passes that policy, or the present debate would not exist. I have repeatedly given a reasoned argument as to why it fails that policy. Simply stating that it "clearly" does not is no rebuttal and is an (unintentional) insult to the intelligence of the people making an argument on the other side. If you wish to rebut me, please address the point I have specifically made.Locke9k (talk) 04:18, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- It plainly is not a directory and there's no way it can be justifiably called as such. Someone can declare that a bananna is not a bannana and how I am supposed to refute that by anything other than saying, yes, it is a bannana. Well, the article is a list, not a directory. It is list consistent with what we are and as such it passes our guidelines and policies, which is why over two dozen editors have provided arguments to that effect. Why does it matter so much if something that is obviously relevant to many of your colleagues is permitted to continue develop? An active interest in this article clearly exists for further improvement. Why not see where that goes? Best, --A NobodyMy talk 04:30, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Please read the actual policy on WP:DIRECTORY if you have not. It is poorly named: it covers more than just 'directories'. The very first point in it specifically covers lists: "Lists or repositories of loosely associated topics such as (but not limited to) quotations, aphorisms, or persons." This does apply to this article. You are free to dispute that, but please don't do so by just linguistically disputing whether this is a 'directory' when that (poorly named) policy actually covers a lot more. Secondly, you keep stating that so many people have argued supported keeping the article, but Wikipedia is not a democracy; the mere fact that a bunch of people like this article isn't a valid argument for keeping it. Locke9k (talk) 04:51, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- After looking at the policy on directory, it is clear that this article passes that page. These subjects are not loosely associated, nor are they just quotations or persons. Yes, Wikipedia is not a democracy and as such by strength of arguments, the article will be kept. Sincerely, --A NobodyMy talk 18:22, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Please read the actual policy on WP:DIRECTORY if you have not. It is poorly named: it covers more than just 'directories'. The very first point in it specifically covers lists: "Lists or repositories of loosely associated topics such as (but not limited to) quotations, aphorisms, or persons." This does apply to this article. You are free to dispute that, but please don't do so by just linguistically disputing whether this is a 'directory' when that (poorly named) policy actually covers a lot more. Secondly, you keep stating that so many people have argued supported keeping the article, but Wikipedia is not a democracy; the mere fact that a bunch of people like this article isn't a valid argument for keeping it. Locke9k (talk) 04:51, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- It plainly is not a directory and there's no way it can be justifiably called as such. Someone can declare that a bananna is not a bannana and how I am supposed to refute that by anything other than saying, yes, it is a bannana. Well, the article is a list, not a directory. It is list consistent with what we are and as such it passes our guidelines and policies, which is why over two dozen editors have provided arguments to that effect. Why does it matter so much if something that is obviously relevant to many of your colleagues is permitted to continue develop? An active interest in this article clearly exists for further improvement. Why not see where that goes? Best, --A NobodyMy talk 04:30, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- It doesn't help to make those sorts of bald assertions with no justification. It apparently is not 'clear' that is passes that policy, or the present debate would not exist. I have repeatedly given a reasoned argument as to why it fails that policy. Simply stating that it "clearly" does not is no rebuttal and is an (unintentional) insult to the intelligence of the people making an argument on the other side. If you wish to rebut me, please address the point I have specifically made.Locke9k (talk) 04:18, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- It clearly passes that page. Sincerely, --A NobodyMy talk 04:11, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- As I mentioned, the (poorly named) policy WP:DIRECTORY actually includes things than in laymans terms are not a directory. The relevant subpoint is "Lists or repositories of loosely associated topics such as (but not limited to) quotations, aphorisms, or persons". I am not arguing that this page is literally a "directory" but simply that it is one of the items excluded under the policy called WP:DIRECTORY. Please take a look at the set of things discussed on that page under this policy - as I said its poorly named and you might be surprised. Locke9k (talk) 20:36, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- This article is not a directory, but a list of encyclopedic and verifiable subjects. A directory is a phone book. This is not presented in a phone book style, but with section headings and paragraphs contained within. Sincerely, --A NobodyMy talk 19:33, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Response: Actually I brought up two points. Wikipedia is not a random collection of information is only one of them. The other is Wikipedia is not a directory, and if you look at the text of that it is clearly meant to cover things like this. Also Wikipedia is not a random collection of information is not necessarily limited to just those things. If I just make a list of fact that have been deleted from other articles that is clearly a nondiscriminate collection of info even though it isnt on that list. Locke9k (talk) 19:31, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and delete - Merge the specific entries into the specific wikipages they relate to. Nonfiction cruft derived completely from whatever bathroom reader any editor happens to have on hand. WP:TRIVIA applies, this is nothing but a list of trivia; that it's a separate page instead of a section makes the problem worse, not better. No way of determining what content is appropriate or hiving off content if it gets to big. No way of determining due weight. This is a prose version of Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information, point four. Horribly biased to specific parts of the world, and no definition of "common". Sources justify that specific entries are factually correct, not that they are common misconceptions. We are not MythBusters or Snopes. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:simple/complex 19:54, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- "Cruft" is never a valid reason for deletion and per Wikipedia:Merge and delete, we cannot delete mergeable content (also per WP:PRESERVE). This is not a list of trivia and it is insulting to say as much as it is noteworthy items relevant to many readers and contributors. It is obviously discriminate as well as pointed out above. Sincerely, --A NobodyMy talk 19:58, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- What do you mean it is "obviously discriminate"? If you really believe that could you please actually logically explain your basis? As I have mentioned, it seems to me that a list containing sections on Law, Science, Cooking, History, and OTHER, among others, is prima facie notdiscriminate. Also I don't see how its insulting. No one has said that the page contains uninteresting trivia. They are just labeling it as 'trivia' because of the fact that it is all gathered in one place despite being of unrelated subjectsLocke9k (talk) 20:21, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- "Cruft" is never a valid reason for deletion and per Wikipedia:Merge and delete, we cannot delete mergeable content (also per WP:PRESERVE). This is not a list of trivia and it is insulting to say as much as it is noteworthy items relevant to many readers and contributors. It is obviously discriminate as well as pointed out above. Sincerely, --A NobodyMy talk 19:58, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Noted, changed to merge and delete. This is very much a list of trivia, with a series of useful sources that could be easily placed in the appropriate articles. Unfortunately not a one of those references are for these being "common misconceptions". The only reason I say "merge and delete" is because I can't think of where you would redirect the article. Perhaps trivia? Incidentally, how can the page be further improved? There's already citations, what "improvement" can be done? WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:simple/complex 22:09, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Again, we cannot merge and delete, we can only merge and redirect with edit history intact. Sincerely, --A NobodyMy talk 04:11, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- What do you mean we can't merge and delete? No one here is saying to have a general merge of this article into one other article. They are saying that there are hundreds of lines of trivia here, each of which needs to go into a separate article. Its not really a merge so much as just adding the info in this article to hundreds of others. I don't see how that prohibits a delete.Locke9k (talk) 04:20, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Deletion is an extreme last resort per WP:BEFORE and WP:PRESERVE. If we merge ANY of the article, we must redirect with the edit history intact per the GFDL, but given that over two dozens editors have argued to keep in this and the earlier discussion and like half of the deletes are really okay with merging, there's no way we're going to have a consensus to delete anyway. Best, --A NobodyMy talk 04:25, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Your point still makes no sense. It is not possible to redirect a page to multiple other pages. No one is suggesting that this be merged in the technical wikipedia sense, which is the combination of one article into one other. They are suggesting that some individual lines of info be added to dozens or hundreds of other articles, as appropriate. Just because an article happens to contain some lines of info that belong in another article doesnt mean it can't be deleted. Finally, there are several days left on this, so lets not make pronouncements yet. No one is suggesting a wholesale merge in the Wikipedia sense. You may be missing their point - they are simply saying that some info can be preserved in many other articles, but that this one should be deleted. I understand that people can stonewall this even if they are not making any reasoned arguments, but time should be left for a reasoned debate. Locke9k (talk) 04:31, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- We would have to redirect it somwhere, maybe to Common misconceptions or Misconception as we cannot delete the edit histories of merged content. There are already sufficiently strong arguments to keep that regardless of what happens in the next few days, no admin could honestly and unbiasedly close as anything other than "keep", "no consensus," or "merge and redirect." So, at this point, we are really just wasting time keeping it going and should discuss either how to improve further on the talk page or how to merge or split into smaller articles as there is no reason beyond "I don't like it" for deletion. Best, --A NobodyMy talk 04:36, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- For all you know five hundred people will comment on this page in the next 3 days and could easily create a consensus. It boots nothing to prematurely squelch debate. Look, why would we have to redirect it somewhere? No one is suggesting to actually merge this page into one other page. Thats what the redirect you are talking about is for; to redirect to the one page into which that page was merged. The rule you are bringing up doesn't actually have anything to do with this situation. I don't accept your argument that "we cannot delete the edit histories of merged content" because I don't agree that anyone is actually suggesting a merge in the wikipedia sense. They are suggesting a delete, but that some of the content that happens to be in this page could be profitably added to other pages. You can't possibly merge this page into any other one page because this page has no one subject. Thanks- Locke9k (talk) 04:40, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Well, I'll grant that I am not a telepath, but in the hundreds of AfDs I have commented in, none had 500 participants. In any event, if we merge anything, we have to keep the edit history public because per the GFDL, which is not my argument, but the policy we go by an based on my experience with such situations in many AfDs, we must keep the edit history public so as to keep the attributions visible. See Wikipedia:Merge and delete for more explanation. If we merge even the references that other editors added elsewhere, we have to acknowledge who originally added that content to Wikipedia in the first place. Sincerely, --A NobodyMy talk 04:45, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- For all you know five hundred people will comment on this page in the next 3 days and could easily create a consensus. It boots nothing to prematurely squelch debate. Look, why would we have to redirect it somewhere? No one is suggesting to actually merge this page into one other page. Thats what the redirect you are talking about is for; to redirect to the one page into which that page was merged. The rule you are bringing up doesn't actually have anything to do with this situation. I don't accept your argument that "we cannot delete the edit histories of merged content" because I don't agree that anyone is actually suggesting a merge in the wikipedia sense. They are suggesting a delete, but that some of the content that happens to be in this page could be profitably added to other pages. You can't possibly merge this page into any other one page because this page has no one subject. Thanks- Locke9k (talk) 04:40, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- We would have to redirect it somwhere, maybe to Common misconceptions or Misconception as we cannot delete the edit histories of merged content. There are already sufficiently strong arguments to keep that regardless of what happens in the next few days, no admin could honestly and unbiasedly close as anything other than "keep", "no consensus," or "merge and redirect." So, at this point, we are really just wasting time keeping it going and should discuss either how to improve further on the talk page or how to merge or split into smaller articles as there is no reason beyond "I don't like it" for deletion. Best, --A NobodyMy talk 04:36, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Your point still makes no sense. It is not possible to redirect a page to multiple other pages. No one is suggesting that this be merged in the technical wikipedia sense, which is the combination of one article into one other. They are suggesting that some individual lines of info be added to dozens or hundreds of other articles, as appropriate. Just because an article happens to contain some lines of info that belong in another article doesnt mean it can't be deleted. Finally, there are several days left on this, so lets not make pronouncements yet. No one is suggesting a wholesale merge in the Wikipedia sense. You may be missing their point - they are simply saying that some info can be preserved in many other articles, but that this one should be deleted. I understand that people can stonewall this even if they are not making any reasoned arguments, but time should be left for a reasoned debate. Locke9k (talk) 04:31, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Deletion is an extreme last resort per WP:BEFORE and WP:PRESERVE. If we merge ANY of the article, we must redirect with the edit history intact per the GFDL, but given that over two dozens editors have argued to keep in this and the earlier discussion and like half of the deletes are really okay with merging, there's no way we're going to have a consensus to delete anyway. Best, --A NobodyMy talk 04:25, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- What do you mean we can't merge and delete? No one here is saying to have a general merge of this article into one other article. They are saying that there are hundreds of lines of trivia here, each of which needs to go into a separate article. Its not really a merge so much as just adding the info in this article to hundreds of others. I don't see how that prohibits a delete.Locke9k (talk) 04:20, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Again, we cannot merge and delete, we can only merge and redirect with edit history intact. Sincerely, --A NobodyMy talk 04:11, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Noted, changed to merge and delete. This is very much a list of trivia, with a series of useful sources that could be easily placed in the appropriate articles. Unfortunately not a one of those references are for these being "common misconceptions". The only reason I say "merge and delete" is because I can't think of where you would redirect the article. Perhaps trivia? Incidentally, how can the page be further improved? There's already citations, what "improvement" can be done? WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:simple/complex 22:09, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep and improve. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 20:08, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep notable topic, is defined and categorised. is only a directory in the way that any article which has a list of anything can be a directory. Has teh potential to be very large, so can be split into subarticles, not grounds for deletion. And easily referenceable with 2nd party indep sources, as there are books on the topic I am sure. Casliber (talk · contribs) 21:12, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Just as a comment, I would suspect most of these facts can be sources. There's no WP:V issues here. What needs to be sourced better is the qualification that these are "common misconceptions". That is not consistent through the list, and thus a cause for concern if there's discretion or not in the makeup of this list. --MASEM (t) 21:17, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- cmt. The article now has 37 [citation needed] tags, and i've only gone through half of it. Some of it's patently absurd ("many people believe koalas are actually bears") some maybe more borderline, but lots of it will need citations to reflect something along the order of "common misconception." (don't get me started on the religious stuff). There is some stuff having to do with scientific beliefs that became outdated (i.e. stuff on chromosomes that is NO LONGER a misconception -- at any rate, most people don't think about this stuff), other scientific issues that people commonly don't think about at all (A common misconception about the Crookes Radiometer? Really?) etc... Most of this stuff will have to go no matter what happens at AFD absent sourcing.Bali ultimate (talk) 21:52, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Indiscriminate list of trivia, fails WP:NOT. Some of the stuff can be merged in relevant articles. This is Wikipedia, not Snopes.--Sloane (talk) 21:53, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- This particular list is discriminate which is why it passes what Wikipedia is. We cannot delete when we merge per the GFDL. Sincerely, --A NobodyMy talk 04:11, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Rebuttal: Look, this is just a disingenuous argument. That may apply when a page is being merged into one other page. You cannot create a redirect when the specific points on this page are being added separately to dozens or hundred of other articles. It is obviously technically impossible and doesn't even make sense. People here are obviously not saying 'merge' in the sense of a wholesale merger of this article and another. They are simply saying colloquially that the specific lines of info on this article can be added (or colloquially 'merged') into other articles as appropriate. Locke9k (talk) 04:24, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Look, what is the big deal here, to be blunt? It is a discrminate list that your colleagues can verify and that our readers want to edit and improve. Looking at the article's edit history, editors are actively working to improve it. We gain absolutely nothing by deleting this obviously encyclopedic article. Best, --A NobodyMy talk 04:27, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Again I will point out that it is not obviously encyclopedic, or there would not be such a debate over it. These 'whats the big deal' arguments totally evade the point. There are things Wikipedia is not, and saying 'whats the big deal' doesn't eliminate the need to comply with those things.Locke9k (talk) 04:33, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- It is to the tens of thousands who come to Wikipedia looking for this article, the scores who have volunteered their time to edit it, and the dozens defending its inclusion. This article is consistent with what Wikipedia is and complies with that scope of coverage as has already been pointed out it is consistent with a specialized encyclopedia on common misconceptions and yes, such books exist. Sincerely, --A NobodyMy talk 04:37, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Again I will point out that it is not obviously encyclopedic, or there would not be such a debate over it. These 'whats the big deal' arguments totally evade the point. There are things Wikipedia is not, and saying 'whats the big deal' doesn't eliminate the need to comply with those things.Locke9k (talk) 04:33, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Look, what is the big deal here, to be blunt? It is a discrminate list that your colleagues can verify and that our readers want to edit and improve. Looking at the article's edit history, editors are actively working to improve it. We gain absolutely nothing by deleting this obviously encyclopedic article. Best, --A NobodyMy talk 04:27, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Rebuttal: Look, this is just a disingenuous argument. That may apply when a page is being merged into one other page. You cannot create a redirect when the specific points on this page are being added separately to dozens or hundred of other articles. It is obviously technically impossible and doesn't even make sense. People here are obviously not saying 'merge' in the sense of a wholesale merger of this article and another. They are simply saying colloquially that the specific lines of info on this article can be added (or colloquially 'merged') into other articles as appropriate. Locke9k (talk) 04:24, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- This particular list is discriminate which is why it passes what Wikipedia is. We cannot delete when we merge per the GFDL. Sincerely, --A NobodyMy talk 04:11, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Needs more references and a well-defined threshold for "common" but it would be silly to delete this interesting article. Rracecarr (talk) 22:16, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete as an indiscriminate trivial list without a clear encyclopedic topic, as required by WP:SALAT. Wikipedia isn't a dumping ground of anything you can think of tangentially related to a topic. ThemFromSpace 23:49, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- WP:SALAT is itself not precise but concludes by saying, "If you create a list like the "list of shades of colours of apple sauce", be prepared to explain why you feel this list contributes to the state of human knowledge." In this case, we have no such bizarre category. Instead we have a topic which has clear educational merit in that it lists common errors or misunderstandings. These are worthy of listing so that our general audience may have their misconceptions corrected and, in this way, they will be educated. As noted above, this topic is suffiently notable that an encyclopedic book has been written about it. I doubt that we will find books about shades of apple sauce and so the distinction is clear. Q.E.D. Colonel Warden (talk) 00:11, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Is it not inherently flawed, relying as it does on a point of view of what constitutes a "common misconception"? pablohablo. 00:36, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. This is an indiscriminate list. Properly sourced information can always be added to the relevant articles, but there is no need to collect these snippets randomly in a single list article. --DAJF (talk) 00:49, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- It is a discriminate list and if we merge the other material we cannot delete per the GFDL. Best, --A NobodyMy talk 04:11, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Again, I will rebut by pointing out that this is absurd. No one is suggesting this be wholesale merged into another article. They are suggesting that individual lines in this article be added to other articles as appropriate. It is technically impossible to redirect a page toward multiple other pages at the same time, so this clearly is not what they had in mind regarding merge / delete policy. People are using the term 'merge' colloquially, not in the technical Wikipedia sense. Also, you keep baldly asserting that this is a discriminate list, with no justification. We have repeatedly given reasoned arguments for why it is not. It would be more helpful were you to do the same rather than using argument by repetition. Locke9k (talk) 04:27, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Well, from my perspective wanting to delete verifiable and encyclopedic content is absurd. There is not justification for calling this discriminate list indiscriminate. It has a clear inclusion criteria: only misconceptions called common in reliable sources. And to be truthful, most of the deletes just repeat "indiscriminate" even though that inaccurate claim has been refuted several times already. Sincerely, --A NobodyMy talk 04:32, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The justification is clear. There is no subject actually linking these varied facts. The claim that the fact that these are 'misconceptions' is a linking subject is no different than a claim that facts could be linking by being conceptions - just things that people think. This is logically no more 'discriminate' than a list of things people commonly believe are true that are correct, and few people would argue in favor of that. Its no different than linking facts by saying that they are "commonly debated," and that would pretty clearly be unacceptable. Just because lists of misconceptions are popular on the internet and in trivia books and smalltalk doesnt make it any more of a truly unifying subject. Locke9k (talk) 04:36, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The subject linking these varied facts is that they are common misconceptions, i.e. items referred to in published books as common misconceptions. The comparisons you make are apples and oranges. Sincerely, --A NobodyMy talk 04:39, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I'd respectfully disagree. They are not apples and oranges. What they have in common is an attempt to call a vague abstraction a subject. "common misconceptions" is not a subject, it is a vague abstraction. Same for "common correct conceptions" or "subject of common debate." Honestly, I can conceive of hundreds of 'subjects' that are nothing more than that - a vague abstraction. I don't think that things linked by vague abstractions qualify as discriminate lists of information. Locke9k (talk) 04:45, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- They are, because here we are talking about something that is the title of at least one published encyclopedia. I know you see it as a trivia book, but arguably any encyclopedia is in effect a collection of content deemed trivia by someone. "Common misconceptions" is indeed a subject, one many authors have addressed as a topic and the examples on this list illustrate that concept. And hey, a "subject of common debate" would be okay by me too, to be honest. My feeling here is strongly Wikipedia:Editors matter as clearly, we should be able to agree, a good deal of our fellow editors and readers want to develop this article and find its information relevant to them. Sure, it's useful, interesting, and helpful may not be the strongest arguments, but they do have some validity in the sense that so long as the concept is also verfiable and it undeniably is, why not allow our fellow editors and readers to make of it what they can? Articles can easily be ignored by those who aren't interested in them. But here we have a number of editors, several far more respected than I, who see value in it. We know it isn't a hoax, copy vio, or libelous, so yeah, it's really harmless and in fact beneficial to a good segment of our community. We would be doing them a disservice by just scrapping it. Best, --A NobodyMy talk 04:51, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I'd respectfully disagree. They are not apples and oranges. What they have in common is an attempt to call a vague abstraction a subject. "common misconceptions" is not a subject, it is a vague abstraction. Same for "common correct conceptions" or "subject of common debate." Honestly, I can conceive of hundreds of 'subjects' that are nothing more than that - a vague abstraction. I don't think that things linked by vague abstractions qualify as discriminate lists of information. Locke9k (talk) 04:45, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The subject linking these varied facts is that they are common misconceptions, i.e. items referred to in published books as common misconceptions. The comparisons you make are apples and oranges. Sincerely, --A NobodyMy talk 04:39, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The justification is clear. There is no subject actually linking these varied facts. The claim that the fact that these are 'misconceptions' is a linking subject is no different than a claim that facts could be linking by being conceptions - just things that people think. This is logically no more 'discriminate' than a list of things people commonly believe are true that are correct, and few people would argue in favor of that. Its no different than linking facts by saying that they are "commonly debated," and that would pretty clearly be unacceptable. Just because lists of misconceptions are popular on the internet and in trivia books and smalltalk doesnt make it any more of a truly unifying subject. Locke9k (talk) 04:36, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Well, from my perspective wanting to delete verifiable and encyclopedic content is absurd. There is not justification for calling this discriminate list indiscriminate. It has a clear inclusion criteria: only misconceptions called common in reliable sources. And to be truthful, most of the deletes just repeat "indiscriminate" even though that inaccurate claim has been refuted several times already. Sincerely, --A NobodyMy talk 04:32, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Again, I will rebut by pointing out that this is absurd. No one is suggesting this be wholesale merged into another article. They are suggesting that individual lines in this article be added to other articles as appropriate. It is technically impossible to redirect a page toward multiple other pages at the same time, so this clearly is not what they had in mind regarding merge / delete policy. People are using the term 'merge' colloquially, not in the technical Wikipedia sense. Also, you keep baldly asserting that this is a discriminate list, with no justification. We have repeatedly given reasoned arguments for why it is not. It would be more helpful were you to do the same rather than using argument by repetition. Locke9k (talk) 04:27, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- It is a discriminate list and if we merge the other material we cannot delete per the GFDL. Best, --A NobodyMy talk 04:11, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete This list is clearly indiscriminate in its scope and the lead is hardly unambiguous about the list's membership criteria. The list is mostly made of of trivia that is better off incorporated into their individual articles. There really is no purpose to this list other then to have a list. See also WP:LISTCRUFT --Farix (Talk) 02:38, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Given the parameters of the article's title, the list is obviously discriminate and it serves a clear navigational purpose in addition to the purpose of supplementing our main articles. See also WP:ITSCRUFT. Sincerely, --A NobodyMy talk 04:11, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep But it should be deconstructed into several articles. 90K-plus bites! Fascinating topic. Let's have a gazillion well-sourced articles like this on many topics and make a category out of the overall concept. Why is there such a need on the part of some people to make Wikipedia boring? There is nothing inherently unencyclopedic about this. -- Noroton (talk) 04:27, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Aside from the OR, synth and bias? --neon white talk 04:51, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Content cited in published books is not original research. Sincerely, --A NobodyMy talk 04:52, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- So what research are you citing to show that these misconceptions are especially common, worldwide? No-one is debating the truth and accuracy of the rebuttals; it's the commonality of the false belief that concerns me. AlexTiefling (talk) 11:19, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Many published books list common misconceptions, and yes, even Encyclopedia Britannica cites common misconceptions within its articles. Moreover, we can use such books as this for citing the religion section. I am not opposed to having separate articles, i.e. Common misconceptions about Catholicism et al, but we absolutely can cover the subject in some manner or other and per WP:PRESERVE and WP:BEFORE, we should be considering these options, but discussing them on the talk page rather than a page for redlinking only. Sincerely, --A NobodyMy talk 18:55, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- So what research are you citing to show that these misconceptions are especially common, worldwide? No-one is debating the truth and accuracy of the rebuttals; it's the commonality of the false belief that concerns me. AlexTiefling (talk) 11:19, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Content cited in published books is not original research. Sincerely, --A NobodyMy talk 04:52, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Aside from the OR, synth and bias? --neon white talk 04:51, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Salvage Per Farix, the list is completely indiscriminate. What qualifies a misconception as "common"? Common is a completely subjective term, and victim to huge systematic bias. E.g. "Napoleon Bonaparte (pictured) was not especially short." how is that misconception common? I'm sure it could be merged into the relevant articles though.--Pattont/c 11:00, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- He is portrayed in the media, from old paintings, to modern movies, as being short. I thought he was short until reading that information. It is a common misconception many of us had, and thus a valid fact to have on the list. Dream Focus 14:26, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- What makes something common? I';ve never heard of him being short.--Pattont/c 16:56, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Because some people haven't heard something doesn't make it any less common. I have been familiar with the stereotype of him being short for a long time and most people I've ever come in contact with who mentioned Napoleon thinks he's short. Anyway, please see page 11 of Napoleon for Dummies, which has a box titled "Speaking of short," that reads "Lots of people, probably including you, think of Napoleon as that short fellow..." and then goes on to debunk the common misconception about Napoleon's height. Please see also Napoleon#Image, which additionall addresses how British propaganda added to the height myth that has perpetuated ever since. Sincerely, --A NobodyMy talk 18:56, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- You still don't seem to understand that common is a subjective term, so it's unclear what belongs in this list and what doesn't. Btw by definition, the fewer people who know something the less common it is.--Pattont/c 19:44, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- We are not going by our personal definitions of what is common, but rather what is define by some authority such as multiple published books as common. I would say that most people who have any mental image of Napoleon would have that stereotyped image of him as short, which is why many authors have written on the subject. Not everyone is going to know what a majority agrees is "common knowledge," but that doesn't make it any less common knowledge. Best, --A NobodyMy talk 19:48, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- You still don't seem to understand that common is a subjective term, so it's unclear what belongs in this list and what doesn't. Btw by definition, the fewer people who know something the less common it is.--Pattont/c 19:44, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Because some people haven't heard something doesn't make it any less common. I have been familiar with the stereotype of him being short for a long time and most people I've ever come in contact with who mentioned Napoleon thinks he's short. Anyway, please see page 11 of Napoleon for Dummies, which has a box titled "Speaking of short," that reads "Lots of people, probably including you, think of Napoleon as that short fellow..." and then goes on to debunk the common misconception about Napoleon's height. Please see also Napoleon#Image, which additionall addresses how British propaganda added to the height myth that has perpetuated ever since. Sincerely, --A NobodyMy talk 18:56, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- What makes something common? I';ve never heard of him being short.--Pattont/c 16:56, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- He is portrayed in the media, from old paintings, to modern movies, as being short. I thought he was short until reading that information. It is a common misconception many of us had, and thus a valid fact to have on the list. Dream Focus 14:26, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- cmt 52 of the articles claims are now tagged as unsourced/uncited. Not done reading all of it yet. Bali ultimate (talk) 13:31, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- There are now 128 references given for information in there. I just added one for the vikings, as well as a link to the official NASA site for the seasons, to confirm that yes, the seasons are caused by the tilt of the planet, and not the distance from the sun as they incorrectly me back in elementrary school. Glad I cleared that up. The rest can be referenced in time, so that hopefully isn't something anyone sees as a valid reason to delete. Dream Focus 15:14, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The citations added in both cases failed to establish that these things are "common misconceptions" so i restored fact tags (while leaving the crufty citations in). I've explained over there in edit summaries and on the talk page. The vast majority of the citations on that page establish only basic facts -- i.e. "the earth tilts on its axis" without determining that there are "common misconceptions" in this regard (that's just a "for instance"). Most of the entries that do not have citations with regard to the specific claims of this list's definition (leaving aside the fact that "common" is far from defined) will have to go. There is resistance to removing unsourced material at the moment. But eventually, absent specific sources supporting A. what is uncontroversially the truth of a given matter and, B. That this truth is "commonly" misunderstood, they will have to go.Bali ultimate (talk) 15:28, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. This appears to be an indiscriminate list of facts with no correlation to each other than the unsourced claim that an unmetered amount of undefined people were previously unaware of them. This is functionally the list of random information I think some people didn't know. — pd_THOR | =/\= | 17:07, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- It actually is a discrim,inate list of facts that have a clear correlation to each other, i.e. common misconceptions that are soruced through reliable sources. The comparison is apples and oranges. Sincerely, --A NobodyMy talk 18:20, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- But, as pointed out by Bali ultimate (talk · contribs), the article provides no evidence for misconception or commonality, only a string of variably sourced indiscriminate facts. Since there is no explicit definition of "common misconceptions" for this article, each entrant needs to reference a source, each of which needs to individually define its information as a "common misconception". — pd_THOR | =/\= | 18:50, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Only items that are referred to as a "common misconception" in a published book should be included and becasue so many books cover the topic we easily cite the items accordingly and provide a definition from these works. Sincerely, --A NobodyMy talk 18:55, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Will you remove the ones that don't to meet The Heymann Standard? As is stands now, none of the entrants specify who/what has defined that factoid as a "common misconception", only a collection of facts. — pd_THOR | =/\= | 19:11, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I am not opposed to and am willing to help with a dramatic revision of the article that in its lead first defines common misconception by using the definitions of the phrase as found in published books and then we include only items covered in published books devoted specifically to common or popular misconceptions, such as this, i.e. we see how these kinds of texts define the terms in their leads and then go from there, but again, I am wondering if a split would be more appropriate in this case? Should we have separate lists on or religion, world regions, etc. and perhaps only include those that are cited in multiple texts. If say something labelled a common misconception only appears in what of the aforementioned books, we don't include it, but when we have something labelled a common misconception in multiple books specifically about common misconceptions, then they merit inclusion in either a master list as we have or in separate lists? My strong belief is that some kind of list of common misconceptions is worth covering. 26 editors have argued to keep this list now and a good segment of the deletes seem okay with some kind of a merge or split as an alternate solution, so what I am asking is essentially what needs to happen to the article to make it acceptable to those who are willing to include coverage of the subject in some capacity? I and others here will indeed work from the advice of our colleauges to get something that most of us are happy with or at least willing to tolerate. Best, --A NobodyMy talk 19:22, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Will you remove the ones that don't to meet The Heymann Standard? As is stands now, none of the entrants specify who/what has defined that factoid as a "common misconception", only a collection of facts. — pd_THOR | =/\= | 19:11, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Only items that are referred to as a "common misconception" in a published book should be included and becasue so many books cover the topic we easily cite the items accordingly and provide a definition from these works. Sincerely, --A NobodyMy talk 18:55, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- But, as pointed out by Bali ultimate (talk · contribs), the article provides no evidence for misconception or commonality, only a string of variably sourced indiscriminate facts. Since there is no explicit definition of "common misconceptions" for this article, each entrant needs to reference a source, each of which needs to individually define its information as a "common misconception". — pd_THOR | =/\= | 18:50, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- It actually is a discrim,inate list of facts that have a clear correlation to each other, i.e. common misconceptions that are soruced through reliable sources. The comparison is apples and oranges. Sincerely, --A NobodyMy talk 18:20, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Indiscriminate listing of trivia. Doctorfluffy (robe and wizard hat) 17:54, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. I can't see any evidence that states that these are common misconceptions. Who says these are misconceptions? Who are they held by? "General populace" is a vague peacock term that does not address this question suitably. Without being able to verify that these are misconceptions with reliable sources, the basis for this article is invalidated. Seraphim♥ 18:41, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Question: Is there a list wiki? I have been working on a list in my userspace of articles to transwiki (see User_talk:A_Nobody/Deletion_discussions#Articles_to_have_transwikied) and for articles such as this one, where while there is no consensus to delete, it still might also be nice on a list specific wiki as well. Best, --A NobodyMy talk 18:56, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete I think there could be some kind of article about misconceptions, how they get started and become common knowledge, and that might include some in-depth and well-sourced examples. But a big, sprawling list of random trivia like this is far too much what Wikipedia is not. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 20:19, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep well sourced and well written. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 21:13, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep and split The problem is the indiscriminate nature of the list; one can introduce discrimination into this topic by defining the subject matter of the list. Someone way back there came up with this solution, and I liked it. I agree with the people who say that THIS article in its current form should not stay as it is; but deletion is not the only option in dealing with this. Insofar as information at this list is referenced, the solution would seem to be to move these ideas to subject-specific articles of common misconceptions, and remove any unreferenced entries. Those two solutions should help address the problems of the nominator, without removing otherwise well researched and referenced information. Again, this article in this form needs to go, but the problem can be solved by means other than deletion. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 21:24, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge to other articles. While more or less each item on this list is sourced and so on, putting them together on the list is a bad idea. The problem is a definition of a common misconception. Those items belong to their separate articles, like in the case of the Great Wall of China, where there is a section in the article iscussiong the misconception about visibility from the Moon. --Tone 21:26, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- cmt to tone: I'm not aware of any of the sourced items that are not already mentioned in one form or another in the relevant articles. So while i'm not opposed to "merge" as a principle, in practice in this case the merge half has already been done.Bali ultimate (talk) 22:12, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - I liked the phrase "a string of variably sourced indiscriminate facts. " And of course, not a directory. I think Tone's suggestion above is actually delete and put anything useful in the appropriate articles, which is fine if it's sourced. dougweller (talk) 21:54, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Misconceptions do exist, and the list looks like a collection of useful information with sources--Caspian blue 22:16, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - Few of these entries have substantiation that the misconception is "common". --EEMIV (talk) 23:10, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- WP:SOFIXIT. Best, --A NobodyMy talk 23:14, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- But that's the problem - it's not fixable without a survey of the world's population that lists what beliefs they hold about matters like Napoleon's height, Pilgrim footwear, the first computer and the Council of Nicaea. If you know where such a survey is published, you fix it. not sure what the "best" bit means so I haven't addressed that. pablohablo. 23:35, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- It is fixable by simply citing from multiple books that describe the items as "common misconceptions" or by splitting into separate articles that deal with specific misconceptions as suggested above. Sincerely, --A NobodyMy talk 23:40, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Well good luck with finding them. pablohablo. 23:48, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Okay, thanks, but just checking Google, a number of books provide lists of common misconceptions. As they cover a number of topics, I am starting to lean towards some kind of split into separate articles with the clear criteria that to be listed it has to be described as a "common misconception" is multiple published books. Regards, --A NobodyMy talk 23:57, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Well good luck with finding them. pablohablo. 23:48, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- It is fixable by simply citing from multiple books that describe the items as "common misconceptions" or by splitting into separate articles that deal with specific misconceptions as suggested above. Sincerely, --A NobodyMy talk 23:40, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- But that's the problem - it's not fixable without a survey of the world's population that lists what beliefs they hold about matters like Napoleon's height, Pilgrim footwear, the first computer and the Council of Nicaea. If you know where such a survey is published, you fix it. not sure what the "best" bit means so I haven't addressed that. pablohablo. 23:35, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I'm concerned about a nomination that seems to ignore POLICY and GUIDELINE in an eager wish to remove this article. I am also concerned by the number of deletes that state the article is imperfect and so must go. That would mean its time to fix it, not trash it. The most basic threshold for inclusion has been met, and everything here is simply quibbling over who thinks what is importanat enough to include or meaningless enough to toss... and this out of out of a paperless encyclopedia. Let's improve wikipedia and not spend so much time trying to diminish it. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 00:18, 22 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- An arguement that such a subject can never be neutral is a perfectly valid reason for deletion. --neon white talk 01:50, 22 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Don't know which nomination you were reading, as that was not a claim made in the nomination, nor one being refuted by me. My own concern is still valid. Thank you. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 02:20, 22 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- An arguement that such a subject can never be neutral is a perfectly valid reason for deletion. --neon white talk 01:50, 22 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep and then clean up the article some. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.188.38.54 (talk) 00:40, 22 March 2009 (UTC) — 70.188.38.54 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
- Delete. What makes a misconception "common", "oft-noted", or similar? When does a misconception move from "uncommon" to "common"? Criteria for inclusion are much too fuzzy, making this list rather indiscriminate and of somewhat limited usefulness. Lankiveil (speak to me) 03:00, 22 March 2009 (UTC).[reply]
- Comment. A number of respondents here have claimed that there is no way to distinguish "common" from "uncommon". This is untrue: if reliable sources characterize some fact as both a "misconception" and "common", then it belongs on the list. It'll take some time to provide sourcing for all the items on the list, but we don't delete articles on the basis of transient imperfections.--Father Goose (talk) 04:31, 22 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- cmt this article is five years old. How much more time does it need for these elusive sources to be found? When do transient imperfections become "untransient." I would argue, we should remove everything that doesn't meet these sourcing requirements now. That would at least make the article better, and less objectionable in light of existing policies.Bali ultimate (talk) 04:34, 22 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- question: With respects, are you no proposing that Wiki now institute a deadline? I ask because editing policy begins with a very important instruction "Even the best of our articles should never be considered complete", it instructs that "Perfection is never required", and explains that "There may be times when material that has some potential value is so poorly written that it is unlikely to be improved any time soon", and of course dictates that "editors should strive to preserve material". Whether it takes five years or 55 years, Wiki is a work in process and is never expected to ever be completed. Your perhaps impatience at how slow the improvements to this article are progressing is perhaps understandable... but there is (currently) no deadline nor expectation for perfection. A belief that everything has to be perfect within an arbitrary timeframe could easily be itself added to the article as a "common misconception". Again, and with respects, this is my observation from existing guideline. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 06:50, 22 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- With respects spare me the misinformed condescension. I'm convinced, after working hard on this, that it's not sourcable EVER. And, it's had five years for people who disagree with me and others to demonstrate otherwise. While there is no deadline, unsourced, uncategorizable garbage should go almost immediately -- if sources emerge later, something can be recreated. Removing an article that might mislead the public does not remove the information from the world. After all, it came from somewhere in the first place. By your argument, nothing should be deleted, ever, because it could always be "improved." Furthermore, all the useful information here is duplicated elsewhere in the encyclopedia. Nothing would be lost by it's removal.Bali ultimate (talk) 07:03, 22 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Wow. Sorry to be the recipient of such ardour. Please accept in good faith that I was not being condensending and was remaining as polite and civil as possible. I can appreciate your statement that you have dedicated time to this... and understand from the histories that that many many others have as well. But please note that my "argument" is from the policy and guideline pages of wiki itself, not simply my opinion. Its just that you just got me thinking of why wiki's rules are written the way they are... and so I was simply asking if you felt it was time to rewrite them all to reflect your thoughts that this and similar information should be either deleted as "garbage" or sprinkled throughout wiki in other locations. Might you then suggest some sort of index system that would make it easier to find the dispersed information by some method other than a random page by page search? Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 07:16, 22 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Condescension doesn't require impoliteness or incivility; in fact, pretended politeness or faux civility enhances its effects.--CalendarWatcher (talk) 08:27, 22 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Wow. Sorry to be the recipient of such ardour. Please accept in good faith that I was not being condensending and was remaining as polite and civil as possible. I can appreciate your statement that you have dedicated time to this... and understand from the histories that that many many others have as well. But please note that my "argument" is from the policy and guideline pages of wiki itself, not simply my opinion. Its just that you just got me thinking of why wiki's rules are written the way they are... and so I was simply asking if you felt it was time to rewrite them all to reflect your thoughts that this and similar information should be either deleted as "garbage" or sprinkled throughout wiki in other locations. Might you then suggest some sort of index system that would make it easier to find the dispersed information by some method other than a random page by page search? Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 07:16, 22 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete This is perhaps the single most epic page of trivia and indiscriminate information Wikipedia has ever seen, but it remains trivia and indiscriminate information. Given that this article will pretty obviously close as no consensus, I hope those voting for retention and rescue will follow through. Resolute 05:05, 22 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Remove unsourced things and retitle to less subjective "list of misconceptions"; notability can be decided by editorial judgment. I think this can be a discriminate list. I can foresee some confusion over the title, as these misconceptions may be discussed as "myths". Why is this not the same as common conceptions? Because misconceptions are much less common and eventually destroyed. Anyway, if this article is destroyed it should be moved to Wikinfo.org. II | (t - c) 05:31, 22 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Or perhaps restructure the existing article to show that certain misconceptions have their own cultural, ethnic, or hemispheric bias? Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 06:55, 22 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Removing the word 'common' doesn't change the structural problems nor indiscriminate and trivial nature of this list one iota. --CalendarWatcher (talk) 08:27, 22 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Or perhaps restructure the existing article to show that certain misconceptions have their own cultural, ethnic, or hemispheric bias? Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 06:55, 22 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete- Indiscriminate and trivial lists like this one are discouraged on Wikipedia, and with good cause. Reyk YO! 06:16, 22 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. A complete hodge-podge of indiscriminate trivia, without even the slightest attempt to provide an even marginally objective definition of 'common misconception'. If the concept is so vague that one can't create an article on the concept itself ('Common misconception', I'll note, a redirect to the list), trying to get around that obvious problem by making it into a list isn't working. --CalendarWatcher (talk) 08:22, 22 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- i think this should be kept or merged. there certainly are published works on lists of significant misconceptions and their sources/causes. maybe this article can be framed in such a way, instead being a simple list? 212.200.243.13 (talk) 13:01, 22 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep I've read through much of the discussion above, and frankly the "delete" reasoning is entirely unconvincing. Yes, the list needs some cleanup and a clearer definition of inclusion criteria, but neither of those is a reason to delete; some people seem to be forgetting that "needs cleanup" is not a reason for deletion and we have no deadline here. The claim that there is no relation between Pilgrim dress and geological features is spurious, as there is a connection: both are the subject of things many people believe that are not, in fact, true. The assertion that the list is "indiscriminate" is false, although it does need a clearer definition of scope; Father Goose said it better than I can. The comparison to a "List of common conceptions" is amusing: we have something like that, but to avoid having a terabyte-sized page it's split across many articles. The fact that someone made a No true Scotsman argument regarding other encyclopedias' coverage of the topic is similarly amusing. The claim that the list matter is "trivial" or "cruft" smacks of WP:IDONTLIKEIT. Anomie⚔ 15:12, 22 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. completely random - some of the content might be moved to other articles. --Cameron Scott (talk) 16:58, 22 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep I fail to find a deletion reason that has a foundation. It's certainly not indiscriminate. Yes, it wants improvement but that is not relevant to an AFD. So keep it's interesting and educational. SunCreator (talk) 17:54, 22 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - This is not an indiscriminate list - we can define common misconceptions by what reliable sources are calling commons misconceptions. If the issue is reliable sourcing, then fix it, that is not an issue that requires deletion. As for the nominatory statement - I have an issue with the nominator proposing that it holds true that because an antonymical list to the one being discussed would be indiscriminate it must also be indiscriminate to have the one we currently are discussing. Asking someone what they did last Saturday is in no way as warranting of an indiscriminate answer as asking them what they in fact did not do last Saturday. As for this article, it would appear that a lot of people seem to care what happened last Saturday. I see no reason to delete. — neuro(talk)(review) 19:50, 22 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep and cleanup – the blaring problem I see in the article is the verifiability of all these facts as common misconceptions. Care must be taken to ensure that those that are not verifiable are not included, i.e. you can cite all you want on the facts themselves, but it needs to be shown via reliable sources that the fact is indeed a common misconception. For example, it needs to be shown that JFK's ich bin ein Berliner statement is a common misconception in itself; sources verifying that he said that is not enough. I few of these are indeed verifiable, and others can be, as well. Hence, I see the need for a good cleanup as opposed to outright deletion in this case. MuZemike 21:03, 22 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. It's useful, it's encyclopaedic. It needs cleaning up a bit, perhaps, and everything in it should be sourced - but it should not be deleted. SNALWIBMA ( talk - contribs ) 21:51, 22 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete, inherently unverifiable. List of things people might like would be an equally funny article which would be equally out of place on wikipedia. If someone wants this emailed to them so they can create a website about it then fine - but the content of this page cannot be decided verifiably. Usrnme h8er (talk · contribs) 00:42, 23 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- delete fails WP:NOT and WP:ENC. Basically this is an arbitrary collection of things that relatively educated people know, but many people do not. Most of them are simply dumb sterotypes or caricatures that aren't accurate. Really, I thought everyone knew there were no horns on viking helmets. Much of ths list could be retitled List of dumb things only very ignorant people believe, much of the rest are barely "common misconceptions" enough to qualify for inclusion for DYK items. There is no attempt at an objective criteria for inclusion. There is no synthesis, the whole of this is nothing more than the sum of its measly parts. This is the sort of thing that makes wikipedia look stupid. Pete.Hurd (talk) 04:19, 23 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete, almost entirely OR and unverifiable, and as some people have misconceptions about everything, is indiscriminate.YobMod 12:57, 23 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Don't let all those "references" at the bottom fool you. There is NOT ONE CASE where the most important reliably sourced reference for each item on the list, i.e. that the item is, in fact, a common misconception, and so belongs on the list, is present. Without any such sourcing, you get an empty list that should therefore be deleted. UnitedStatesian (talk) 13:36, 23 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete There is a Trivia-esque quality to it that can't be incorporated into an article on the subject because there is no subject. That most of these misconceptions are common is also doubtful - the first "common misconception" I came across in the list was the Let them eat cake one, and even that is so obscure that I only learned of it a few months ago. Both of these points make this list indiscriminate in my eyes, plus I actually see no encyclopedic purpose in this list. – sgeureka t•c 13:55, 23 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment (as I already voted delete above), reading the responses, I think a lot of this comes down to the fact that the existance of any item on this list needs to have a source to say it is a common misconception, but to that end, the phrase "common misconception" is a highly loaded POV statement even if it comes from a reliable source. What, factually, is a common misconception? The problem is that the sources to support this need to pull two pieces of information together: that a significant fraction of people believe one thing, and that the reality is something else, just stating that something is "a common misconception" doesn't cut it, even if it is coming from the most reliable source ever. Just like the definition of "trivia", there is no hard meaning for this word, and thus if we simply go off any RS that states "it's a common misconception", this becomes indiscriminate. The only way I can see this list to become less indiscriminate is if only a small subset of RS sources were used that would be the appropriate authorities on what are "common misconceptions" but I don't even known where to begin to set the bounds for this (education-related journals may be a startng point, but even that's not great). --MASEM (t) 14:19, 23 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Even if you can get those sources you're still looking at one POV against another. Consider if every subject in the list was a seperate article that stated something was a misconception without any sources. It would be removed as OR instantly but if they are all together in a list that makes it ok? It's still opinions/values stated as facts against Wikipedia:NPOV#A_simple_formulation policy --neon white talk 16:28, 23 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep as per Father Goose and others. This seems to be a replay of the repeated attempts to delete e.g. List of unusual deaths, in which "what is unusual" arguments come ad libitum. Doesn't look like a telephone directory to me. What an incredible amount of passion and energy that goes into such discussions. Power.corrupts (talk) 15:34, 23 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - The unusual deaths are generally well-sourced as being unusual. If these could generally be as well sourced as that as being common misconceptions in some clearly stated form, then there would be a good argument for keeping and splitting this list. But I'm still not convinced that it's possible to source them as such, and I'm certainly not seeing sources in the article which consistently demonstrate the commonality of false belief on the topics in question. AlexTiefling (talk) 16:11, 23 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The discussion at the latest AfD nomination of List of unusual deaths was precisely that "unusual" was a subjective quality, inherently ill-defined. Still, most people, applying common sense, felt that the deaths indeed were "unusual", like the first on the list, having a bird dropping a turtle on your head. It's the same thing here. Several of the misconceptions in this list, for instance if the Great Wall in China would be visible from the moon, is something I have been told way back at some point in time, I now realize, due to this list, that it's a tale, an urban legend of sorts. I doubt if a research source could be located, having identified this as "a common" misconception. I would personally never take on such a research task, out of fear of being nominated for the next Ig Nobel Prize. Power.corrupts (talk) 20:46, 23 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep or delete :( This is an excellent, entertaining, wonderful article that shows what is so great about wikifying information. Sadly, it is not encyclopedic for a few reasons. "Common misconceptions" is not a tightly defined concept or a notable / encyclopedic subject in itself. The subject, if it were notable, would be on the tendency of people to believe, and sources to spread, untrue factoids that sound plausible or interesting. The actual content of those misconceptions is not that relevant. Even if the subject were encyclopedic, there are so many of them that a single article cannot hope to include more than a scattering of them, nor is there any logical inclusion criterion that comes to mind. I'll point out that it is not really a list: I do not see sourcing for most of these. To be properly sourced you would need a secondary source that says: (A) there is a common misconception that X, but (B) the truth is Y. In the list here, we have not cited A, and it is A, not B, that needs to be notable. I'm not averse to keeping on some "WP:ILIKEIT" or "WP:IAR" theory, as long as we don't encourage people to create too many of these articles. One or two here and there is nice, but if the encyclopedic becomes full of these things we'll have lists of famous bloopers, lists of double entendres, lists of common Freshman algebra mistakes, etc. If it is deleted, someone should just post the whole thing on a website and maintain it there, or maybe port it to a different project space. Wikidemon (talk) 16:25, 23 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep: The two premises for deletion, WP:NOTINDISCRIMINATE and WP:NOTDIRECTORY, don't apply unless distorted to give them a broader interpretation that wasn't meant when they were written and for which there isn't consensus. The 23 thousand results for common misconception on google books and news might help with determining what a common misconception is. Year Zero is a concept (talk) 16:27, 23 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep: I know this is essentially WP:ILIKEIT, but this is one of those pages that draws in readers and makes the encyclopedia more interesting, even if it flouts a few of our guidelines. I think in this case, it would be best to apply WP:IAR, and keep the thing around a while longer.. --Versageek 17:17, 23 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- This is the other approach that concerns me. This page is not well linked; take away talk page discussion, the anon IPs, and the like, and the only real links are to other "lists of factoids". This type of article is one that has many routes out but few in (particularly reverse links), and is also an awkward search term. It's not like the mainpage Did You Know... box which will attract eyes. --MASEM (t) 17:41, 23 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- And yet, tons of people have viewed and contributed to the article. I suspect it ranks pretty high on some web searches. There are also about a dozen incoming links from regular articles. It's hardly an orphan.--Father Goose (talk) 04:56, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- This is the other approach that concerns me. This page is not well linked; take away talk page discussion, the anon IPs, and the like, and the only real links are to other "lists of factoids". This type of article is one that has many routes out but few in (particularly reverse links), and is also an awkward search term. It's not like the mainpage Did You Know... box which will attract eyes. --MASEM (t) 17:41, 23 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: I suppose if kept (or no consensused) we would still need to delete all content we can't find statistical survey data to reinforce as a "common" misconception? For some of it surveys will have been done (as parts of academic psychology work no doubt) but the vast majority would go the way of the Dodo if exposed to such unmotivated scrutiny and unreasonable requirements. The problem is that many of those who like it now wouldn't like it after such a silly process. Usrnme h8er (talk · contribs) 17:27, 23 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep There is substantial coverage in reliable sources which is the basis for ntoability and article inclusion. Editors are welcome to improve/ clean up the article. ChildofMidnight (talk) 18:35, 23 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep and chainsaw. This list is a natural magnet for unsourced, unverifiable facts; that is a problem, but not a justification for deletion. I ask the question: can this article be reduced to a stub with only one list entry, that one entry presenting carefully-sourced evidence that a particular fact is a common misconception? If so, then that's a good starting point. We can watchlist it to help keep it clean. It does cover a very broad area, but it can be sectioned and split as necessary. Dcoetzee 23:29, 23 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Userfy/projectify (userfy to a relevant project). I totally support lists in general, but in this case I agree with the delete side. Discovering whether something is a common misconception is easy, but it still means it's a list of loosely related facts which is a specific rule for stuff not to make a list from. Having this somewhere in project space as a reference to check all relevant articles to see if the facts are in there and correct is more productive. (For those not willing to read the entire thread: I don't think you need two sources for an entry, sites like Snopes.com can prove it's a common misconception and debunk the claim all with one reference. - Mgm|(talk) 00:04, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep: per IAR and the excellent missives from A Nobody. Unomi (talk) 00:16, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Overly broad list with vague parameters. AniMatetalk 02:24, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete or Wikipedia: namespace – it's easier to see why this should probably be deleted when you imagine the other article names that say the exact same thing:
- ... and the list goes on. "List of common misconceptions," while it feels like it needs a place on Wikipedia, is constrained to the time, place, culture, and the commonality of the alleged misinformation's distribution in a particular society— all of which is not sourced in the article. Additionally, the problem with this is that the information will always change, and it will always vary across cultures, thus emphasizing only one is systemic bias. Its sister articles that would want to be created are "List of things that were common misconceptions during the 19th century," and "List of things that were common misconceptions during the 17th century." Great potential articles, but unless it has the secondary sources to verify that it was a common misconception, it's difficult to justify having an article that synthesizes what is currently a misconception by stringing together sources or facts for each bullet point.
- The far more immediate concerns for Wikipedia are also apparent:
- How does one justify sourced additions or deletions from the list when someone disagrees?
- How does one prevent battlegrounders from asserting that a particular misconception is more misconceived/important/prevalent than another misconception?
- What determines whether one misconception is "more interesting" (and thus warrants inclusion) than another misconception?
- What determines when a "fringe (uncommon) misconception" is being given undue weight over a "mainstream (common) misconception?" "Common sense?"
- Is it a "common misconception" (yet?) that the earth was created 6,000 years ago? How do you prove it is? How do you prove it isn't? How do you prove it's misconceived?
- Great list, and I agree it's useful, but is sadly more "did you know that" than encyclopedic, and the policy arguments tend to outweigh the WP:IAR arguments in my opinion.
- --slakr\ talk / 09:03, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Looks to me like a great sister piece for the WP:DYK type of information that we post to the main Wikipedia front page. If we're encouraged to create DYK information, it appears obvious to me that a list like this could go on to being a FL, and in time split into various lists by topic. just IMHO — Ched ~ (yes?)/© 09:27, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Isn't that an argument for the list to be on a project page, rather than in an encyclopedia article? --SV Resolution(Talk) 14:18, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per WP:IINFO and WP:NOT#HOST. This is a nice web page, but doesn't belong in an encyclopedia. If someone want to keep this outside article space as source material for some future project (such as WP:DYK), that would be fine. / edg ☺ ☭ 12:48, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete this cruft-magnet or transwikify to WikiBooks. Lists of common misconceptions are a popular topic for the kind of book that one tends to find in remaindered book shops rather than in libraries or real book shops. If WikiBooks doesn't have a book of this genre yet, it should. There is a verifiability problem because many of the factoids in the list are sourced to such books, which generally have the very low standard of accuracy of a large part of the edutainment market. In other words: Such books are generally not reliable sources. There is a demarcation problem, because the choice of factoids from the thousands that have appeared in relevant books seems to be purely random. This list is no more encyclopedic than a list of interesting telephone numbers in Leeds, only more entertaining. --Hans Adler (talk) 16:47, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: I would like to posit that the discussion here isn't (or shouldn't be) the veracity of the claims or the comedic value of the page (BJAODN anyone?) but rather the possibility of judging whether something is a "commonly held" misconception objectively (I know this has been stated above, I am repeating it and trying to clarify the reasoning). This can be demonstrated by looking at two examples, List of true stuff and List of cool stuff. Obviously both lists would be totally unmaintainable in terms of size but the thing I'm trying to demonstrate is that one of them is subjective and the other objective and, barring solipcist/nihilist reasoning about truth, it's pretty straight forward which is which. The question here is which of the above "commonly held" falls into, whether it is reasonable to believe that reliable (reliability is not implied by it being on paper or on the internet after all) sourcing of such title can be found for enough claims to make a worthwhile list, and whether such a list, once created, would be encyclopaedic content without violating WP:NOT and WP:OR in a way which makes WP:IAR unreasonable. Usrnme h8er (talk · contribs) 17:02, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. MBisanz talk 23:58, 23 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Dana L. French[edit]
- Dana L. French (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
Autobiography that fails to assert notability: none of the sources are third-party reliable ones about the subject, merely generic link directories pointing to his company, and articles by him. Gordonofcartoon (talk) 15:14, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed, when searching online for Dana L French the only results I can find are his self-published online resume and the wikipedia entry. There are no third party sources and it is no more than self-promotion. カンチョーSennen Goroshi ! (talk) 15:21, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Quite the contrary, many of the sources are third-party reliable sources, including IBM Developerworks, AIX Update Journal, Chris F.A. Johnson's book on shell scripting, the Unix Guru Universe, third-party development project based on kshSQL at Freshmeat, TechTarget and others. Just because you don't understand the source, doesn't mean it's not reliable. Dfrench (talk) 15:23, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I am sorry but looking at for example IBM Developerworks, it seems as if anyone could register, login and submit their own organization. To quote
Sign in to:
* Create and update your solutions * Submit a customer experience * Add a solution to an industry view in the Business Partner Application Showcase * Nominate your solution for an IBM technical validation or speciality * View response cards
that would seem to be a self-published source
カンチョーSennen Goroshi ! (talk) 15:32, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Agree - IBM Developerworks appears to have a low bar to entry, and is not peer reviewed (readers can click on a button to give feedback, but there's no evidence that prevents developers from getting articles published). Tedickey (talk) 15:40, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no third party references, non notable, self promotion. TeapotgeorgeTalk 16:04, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - repeated requests for reliable sources have not been successful Tedickey (talk) 16:13, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - The article lacks third-party reliable sources that have commented on French's work. EdJohnston (talk) 16:19, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Self promotional and lacking third party sources. カンチョーSennen Goroshi ! (talk) 16:29, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete self promotional, no third party coverage. -Drdisque (talk) 20:09, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as a WP:COI-ridden piece of self-promotion. No demonstrable notability per WP:BIO. Eusebeus (talk) 20:20, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as the most persistent piece of WP:COI I've ever seen. Lacks verifiability and fails WP:BIO despite the author/subject's ongoing attempts to subvert the process. Trash it. Taroaldo (talk) 21:01, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per the WP:RS issues noted above, exacerbated by the WP:COI and WP:OWN issues by its most frequent editor, and apparent creator, the subject of the article. TJRC (talk) 22:22, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:01, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Article seems like an infomercial, not to mention everything seems to be created by the subject. MMAJunkie250 (talk) 12:29, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
KeepDelete Valuable repository on the history of early '60s Oklahoma youth hang gliding. I'm sorry, did I type that out loud?--NapoliRoma (talk) 14:10, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- that would be around 1974, rather than early '60s (using the information in the topic, of course) Tedickey (talk) 14:20, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Strong delete and salt - blatant spammy self-advert. Do I smell WP:SNOW? --Orange Mike | Talk 16:10, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Speedy delete We just had this deleted under a different name a few days ago. And block User talk:Dfrench for clear spamming and a clumsy attempt to get around the previous delete. DreamGuy (talk) 20:07, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Speedy delete and salt - it appears that articles with this name (including Dana French and Dana french) have been deleted on 1 January 2006, 2 January 2006, 28 February 2006, 1 March 2006, 6 April 2008, and 10 March 2009. After several years and 6 deletions, I don't believe that he's gotten any more notable. Dori (Talk • Contribs) 01:02, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Strong, Speedy Delete with a pinch of Salt, and pronto per WP:SNOW. Serious WP:NPOV issues and obvious WP:COI. Also notability is unverifiable. Given the history of deletions I think a block may be in order as well. -- samj inout 18:04, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Speedy delete and for goodness sake Salt this and prior names. Suggest blocking if it's reposted yet again. There's a point where vanity and self-promotion stops and vandalism and disruption begins, and this user has clearly crossed the line. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 18:57, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. –Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 00:11, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
IMagic OS[edit]
- IMagic OS (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
Non-notable kubunutu distro. The only links are blogs and trivial (for our purposes) mentions at distro directories. There seems to be a single review of this but the providence of that site is undetermined. No reliable sources = no article. --Cameron Scott (talk) 15:11, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. -- — LinguistAtLarge • Talk 19:20, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Reposting what I put on the article's talk page: I can find extremely little independent media coverage. [34] is one of the few. The rest are obvious spam blogs, Linux distro list sites, and forums (many appearing, again, to be spam posts, such as [35]). -- Consumed Crustacean (talk) 02:36, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - Lacks reliable sources that consider it to be an important distribution. There are too many Linux clones for us to cover all of them. (Ubuntu itself is obviously important, and has lots of press coverage, but this one has a long way to go). EdJohnston (talk) 06:29, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete nn -- samj inout 16:27, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. –Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 00:12, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Daunta Peterson[edit]
- Daunta Peterson (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
Former college football player who never played one game in the NFL, fails WP:ATHLETE, as NFL Europe isn't fully professional Delete-- Secret account 15:02, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of American football-related deletion discussions. —Giants27 T/C 20:39, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Athletes-related deletion discussions. —Giants27 T/C 20:39, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:01, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Never actually played a game in the NFL, non-notable delete.--Giants27 T/C 16:37, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Division III player in college, no professional experience as far as I can tell. No significant coverage found in a cursory search seems to not satisfy WP:N. Strikehold (talk) 16:58, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was keep. –Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 00:13, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Aidan Gould[edit]
- Aidan Gould (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
Unnotable child actor. One role in an relatively unnotable film does not meet WP:ENTERTAINER, nor does he meet WP:BIO and WP:N. Has no significant coverage in reliable, third-party sources. Speedy declined by User:WereSpielChequers with note of "decline speedy and replace with notability - starred in a film is an assertion of notability" -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 15:00, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. — -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 15:00, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - Non-notable child actor from a non-notable film. Only two found reliable sources, one of which says almost nothing. Delete. – J U M P G U R U ■ask㋐㋜㋗■ 20:10, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: that movie was very notable at the 2008 Berlin Film Festival, according to Google. I've added a few of those results to the article; apparently German critics liked the kid well enough. Drmies (talk) 21:43, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Reviews of his role in the film go in the film article. They don't really provide significant coverage of him as a person, but of a character. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 00:02, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The reviews say that the person Aidan Gould did a good job of playing the part in the movie. That pertains to the person's notability. And I see why Jumpguru called Julia non-notable--but the movie is notable enough. Drmies (talk) 00:41, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- In agreement, the reviews all speak of him by name... not his character name... and highly praise his acting... exactly the notability being asserted and sourced. If his acting had not been worth making note, the reviewers would not have included him. Aslo, and with respoects to the nom, if the film Julia was "relatively unnotable" it is unlikely it would have such a terrific article on Wiki. However, and thank you, the reviews would also make a nice addition to the film article. Thank you. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 02:05, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Terrific? Please tell me you're being sarcastic if you think that is a "terrific" articles. It has a plot summary, cast list, and one unsourced sentence in the reception section. None of the article is sourced. It is far from being terrific in any sense of the word. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 02:10, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Far better than many currently on Wiki. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 02:15, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Not by any realistic standard. Its a typical bad film article: overly long plot summary, no lead, nothing useful. Julia (2008 film) is a stub, nothing more. There is nothing terrific about it. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 02:17, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Well... now I have something to do. We made that darn book article shine and I hope to have your help on the film article when you get a chance. And we're going to have to figure a good DYK hook. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 02:25, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Far better than many currently on Wiki. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 02:15, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Terrific? Please tell me you're being sarcastic if you think that is a "terrific" articles. It has a plot summary, cast list, and one unsourced sentence in the reception section. None of the article is sourced. It is far from being terrific in any sense of the word. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 02:10, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Reviews of his role in the film go in the film article. They don't really provide significant coverage of him as a person, but of a character. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 00:02, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep per expansion and sourcing done by User:Drmies. This little fellow may be young, but his work is being praised in Reliable Sources and he is getting coverage to meet WP:PEOPLE. This article will be growing over the next few years, right alongside the actor. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 22:23, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:00, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. Aidan Gould is not Elliot Gould, but he passes the WP:N bar, in my opinion. He's had notable German and British critics write positively about him, he's been one of the main actors in a notable movie, and he's had a couple of TV appearances on notable programs. MQS, I don't know how you always manage to find those sources. Nice work, thanks! Drmies (talk) 00:41, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Being IN film, perhaps my mindset allows me to figure different search parameters. In this case, both you and the nom provided the clues. She wrote the film was "relatively unnotable" and in looking at its wiki article and searching to determine if her statement had any basis, I found the reviews she must have missed. I owe her my thanks. More such exist may in his connection with other projects... as in the film industry, its all connected. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 02:11, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- "# Has had significant roles in multiple notable films, television, stage performances, or other productions" does not say " and was mentioned in a review for a single film. Note the multiple in the criteria. None of the reviews constitute the "significant coverage" required to meet WP:N as well. Brief mention in an overall review of the film isn't significant, its minor and only because of the film. Any notability of the film does not confer to its actors.-- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 02:21, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- You need not, but other editors in looking at the article, now that it has been expanded and sourced as a direct result of your tagging it, will find the multiple international reviews (German ones in depth), and a filmology showing lead roles in multiple films. Not simply "a review" and not simply "one film". Thank you. WP:AGF? Schmidt, MICHAEL Q.
- Good gosh, he's only nine. Even Haley Joel Osment was a kid once. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 02:27, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes, he is only nine, but that doesn't exempt him from the same guidelines. Right now, he's just a WP:ONEVENT person, which also fails WP:BIO. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 02:30, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- One event? A movie, which was discussed in British and German media, and not on the same day, you mean. Besides, if you'd look through those articles, you'd see that the "Skandale und Glanznummern" article actually devotes some attention to him besides just mentioning his acting skills: "Das [gekidnappten Kind] wird von dem heute 11-jährigen Aidan Gould nicht minder unheimlich gekonnt gespielt. Allein, das Talent des kleinen Mimen hat sein Selbstwertgefühl abseits des Sets offenbar ein wenig überstrapaziert. Bei der Berlinale tritt der junge Film-Spross jedenfalls recht altklug in Erscheinung, und auf die Frage, ob die permanente Gegenwart von Pistolen und Gewalt in seiner unmittelbaren Umgebung ihm nicht Angst gemacht habe, weiß er schon ganz abgeklärt zu antworten: 'Man möchte ja auch Angst haben vor der Kamera, wenn man Angst haben soll.'" That's pretty funny, coming from an 11-year old, and especially useful for our purposes is that I have this from a German article. Oh, I'm sure you also saw in those German articles that it was him and the lead actress who were in Germany for the promotion of the movie at the Berlinale--that there were more than a dozen hits in the German media for this kid would perhaps suggest that there is a shred of notability here. One event? A significant series of events, it seems to me. Drmies (talk) 02:52, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes, he is only nine, but that doesn't exempt him from the same guidelines. Right now, he's just a WP:ONEVENT person, which also fails WP:BIO. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 02:30, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. —Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 04:07, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. —Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 04:07, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. —Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 04:07, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - good work people! Artw (talk) 04:55, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep per sources. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 06:21, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep, notability has been established by multiple reviewers publicly making not of him for his work. Rather than ONEEVENT(???), his filmology seems to show a growing career. It is seen that he is recieving coverage in multiple articles in multiple countries. I can easily accept good faith that the sources provided by User:Drmies are significant and in depth. Ikip (talk) 11:20, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Meets WP:ENTERTAINER for prominent roles. Subject of reliable sources. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 13:30, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep-Julia is a notable film, having been released in ten countries, and will be released in America in April. Tilda Swinton won best actress for the film. Secondly, Aidan is not a one-hit wonder, he has a lead in three more feature films, soon to be released. I think we will see more from this kid. —Preceding unsigned comment added by TypeEdit (talk • contribs) 15:27, March 20, 2009 — TypeEdit (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
- TypeEdit, I really suggest that you try using the sandbox before you make edits in mainspace articles. And as Collectonian has told you, you cannot edit other people's comments. I have reverted your addition to the Aidan Gould article; while that review was very positive and friendly, haaba.com cannot really count as a reliable source. It is, for instance, entirely unclear who wrote that article; I cannot imagine that an African blog or portal would send a reviewer to Berlin to write about movies. Drmies (talk) 20:58, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- haaba.com is actually a pan-african news site which mosting publishes news from other media sources, this article was written by the editor, i think it just passes verifiablity. --neon white talk 01:09, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Neonwhite, that's precisely the problem. Editor? What editor? As you know, Berlin is not in Africa. I don't like the smell of it--surely it's not some editor locally at the haaba headquarters. They got it from somewhere, and I can't tell from where. It's OK for blogs to simply repeat information, even if it's incomplete, but it shouldn't be for us. Drmies (talk) 20:21, 22 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- haaba.com is actually a pan-african news site which mosting publishes news from other media sources, this article was written by the editor, i think it just passes verifiablity. --neon white talk 01:09, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment-Look at what you guys are saying keep to. There are like, no sources for this kid. I found two reliable sources, how can you make an article out of that? This should be deleted. – J U M P G U R U ■ask㋐㋜㋗■ 21:19, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- There are eight sources in the article right now. Like, that's plenty to support the statements made in the article, and a good indication that more is to follow. Drmies (talk) 21:33, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes, please take a look. When you first brought the article to the nom's attention on her talk page it was in poor shape certainly, but the sources existed and have been added.. and the article itself expanded. It is not the same article that you found... nor the same one she nominated. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 22:50, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- It is still in no better shape. If you actually look at and follow the guidelines for a biography, nearly everything "added" would quickly be removed as not belonging there, which would reduce it to only 4 references. And still nothing actually added provided significant coverage, but no one seems to be looking at either of those things. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 00:20, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Opinion. And the informations added do indeed have a place in a BLP for an actor. I will provide examples if you wish. Thank you for WP:AGF. His statement was "There are like, no sources for this kid. I found two reliable sources". In response it was shown that more than 2 were available and have been added. Further, there are even more but kinda seems like overkill. Oh... we didn't use the myspace link JumpGuru found in his search (it was for a different Aidan Gould). Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 00:29, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Collectonian, I did provide English translations of the German press praising Gould's performance. How are those things not "belonging there"? Are you saying that in biographies one cannot have references that say something about the person? That strikes me as odd. As for "no one seems to be looking at either of those things," I think you should assume good faith in all the editors on this page who have voted keep--you have to consider that it IS possible that they considered lots of things and simply disagree with you. Surely that's possible, no? Drmies (talk) 20:21, 22 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Because biographies are not for reception sections of their various films, but summaries of the person's life, career, etc. And I am assuming good faith, (well except for one below which is obviously not assuming good faith towards me), however I also know that at least a few of the editors voting keep have little experience in editing and crafting GOOD biographies, which would not include that sort of information at all. While I'm not fond of editing biographies, particularly of living people, I am experienced in the overall concept of what does and does not go in one. As such, what's been added does not actually add any value to the article, nor does it really speak to his notability, only to the film's. If you look at any FA biography articles from the last year or so, you will see this is so. Further, some keeps seem to be basing their votes on his "future" potential, which goes against WP:CRYSTAL. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 20:26, 22 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- It is still in no better shape. If you actually look at and follow the guidelines for a biography, nearly everything "added" would quickly be removed as not belonging there, which would reduce it to only 4 references. And still nothing actually added provided significant coverage, but no one seems to be looking at either of those things. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 00:20, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes, please take a look. When you first brought the article to the nom's attention on her talk page it was in poor shape certainly, but the sources existed and have been added.. and the article itself expanded. It is not the same article that you found... nor the same one she nominated. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 22:50, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- There are eight sources in the article right now. Like, that's plenty to support the statements made in the article, and a good indication that more is to follow. Drmies (talk) 21:33, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep per Drmies. I hope when the nominator tags for deletion to an article, do some research, plz.--Caspian blue 22:46, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - Meets WP:Creative. This young actor is notable has had significant roles in notable films including Julia (2008), The Red Balloon (2006), The Secret Life of Leonardo Da Vinci (2006), and The McPassion (2006). Untick (talk) 04:28, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep The sources for this article are reliable and verifiable. There may be a conflict of interest for Jumpguru as he has been involved in a real life conflict with the subject of this wikipedia article.Journeey (talk) 21:23, 22 March 2009 (UTC)Journeey — Journeey (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
- Please provide some evidence of this? I'd love to know how this occurred. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 22:17, 22 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I do not see how his being an editor for Jump magazines or his authoring of Jump's manga articles off-wiki could act in conflict here. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 01:01, 23 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- What are you talking about? -_O The only thing I can think of a conflict over, would be over the spelling over my name. – J U M P G U R U ■ask㋐㋜㋗■ 02:37, 23 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- You are right, Schmidt, there is no conflict over Jump Guru being an editor for Jump magazines or manga articles. The conflict of interest, which, under Wikipedia's own rules, Jump Guru should have disclosed when he started this deletion process, is that Jump Guru personally knows Aidan, they are 12 year old classmates who are having a schoolyard tiff that has nothing whatsoever to do with the validity of Aidan's Wikipedia article. Thanks to Jump Guru initiating this deletion process, the tiff is being played out on this discussion page, which is an inappropriate forum for a schoolyard argument. Once again, the sources in Aidan Gould's article are reliable and verifiable. That is what is important here. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.58.165.252 (talk) 03:14, 23 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- And your evidence is? You are slandering an established editor and borderline violating Wikipedia policies regarding "outing" editors. He also didn't "start" this deletion process, which negates your who spurious claim (also fairly sure Jump is in his 20s) -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 03:18, 23 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Perhaps our anonymous IP thinks that by JumpGuru first bringing Aidan Gould to your attention[36] the process was begun. And naturally, Jump Guru's age is of no consequence, for wiki has many young editors. His age would then be the only "outing", and of no importance, as JG has already declared on his userpage[37] his involvement with Jump magazine and manga. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 17:12, 23 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Actually, yes it would be of importance. One does not go around identifying minors if the minor himself has not said he is one (which of course JumpGuru is not, but general case here). One also does not go around making statements implying they are trying to identify the real-life persona of a Wiki editor if they have not chosen to do so. Big huge bruhahas over that quite recently. Also, I think you may be misreading his page - he isn't involved in Jump magazine as an editor IRL, he edits the Jump related articles and manga articles in general :) -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 17:23, 23 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Ah. My bad. Editing wiki articles rather than editing the magazines. Understood. I still think his age does not discredit his bringing the article's earlier version to your attention... whether 12 or 20... matters not to wiki, except in that calling an adult a child is incivil. If true, I would not wish evidences to then be made public (outing). If false, it can be ignored. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 21:49, 23 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I am an adult. That Journeey guy was probobly trying to insult me for being related to the deletion of the article. – J U M P G U R U ■ask㋐㋜㋗■ 22:17, 23 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Ah. My bad. Editing wiki articles rather than editing the magazines. Understood. I still think his age does not discredit his bringing the article's earlier version to your attention... whether 12 or 20... matters not to wiki, except in that calling an adult a child is incivil. If true, I would not wish evidences to then be made public (outing). If false, it can be ignored. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 21:49, 23 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Actually, yes it would be of importance. One does not go around identifying minors if the minor himself has not said he is one (which of course JumpGuru is not, but general case here). One also does not go around making statements implying they are trying to identify the real-life persona of a Wiki editor if they have not chosen to do so. Big huge bruhahas over that quite recently. Also, I think you may be misreading his page - he isn't involved in Jump magazine as an editor IRL, he edits the Jump related articles and manga articles in general :) -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 17:23, 23 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Perhaps our anonymous IP thinks that by JumpGuru first bringing Aidan Gould to your attention[36] the process was begun. And naturally, Jump Guru's age is of no consequence, for wiki has many young editors. His age would then be the only "outing", and of no importance, as JG has already declared on his userpage[37] his involvement with Jump magazine and manga. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 17:12, 23 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- What are you talking about! XD I'm over 20 years old! – J U M P G U R U ■ask㋐㋜㋗■ 03:47, 23 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- 12 or 20... age does not matter to wiki. Its the encyclopedia anyone can edit. And even if you were a 12-year-old who had a schoolyard conflict with the subject, the article about him would still be subject to review for sources eventually anyway, and the subsequently added sources provide what is required. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 17:12, 23 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- ROFLOL Are you trying to tell me that you actually believe that! XD – J U M P G U R U ■ask㋐㋜㋗■ 17:16, 23 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Excuse myself, but this is a joke! I did not have a schoolyard conflict. I'm 22! – J U M P G U R U ■ask㋐㋜㋗■ 17:18, 23 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I don't think you understand what Michael is trying to say--"even if..." is hypothetical. Drmies (talk) 17:35, 23 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Indeed, only a hypothetical. Age matters not to wiki unless you were actually a minor child and something were done to bring your name and location to the fore. Since the allegation is made by a SPA, a closing admin will likely disregard it and look to the article itself. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 21:49, 23 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I don't think you understand what Michael is trying to say--"even if..." is hypothetical. Drmies (talk) 17:35, 23 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- 12 or 20... age does not matter to wiki. Its the encyclopedia anyone can edit. And even if you were a 12-year-old who had a schoolyard conflict with the subject, the article about him would still be subject to review for sources eventually anyway, and the subsequently added sources provide what is required. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 17:12, 23 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- And your evidence is? You are slandering an established editor and borderline violating Wikipedia policies regarding "outing" editors. He also didn't "start" this deletion process, which negates your who spurious claim (also fairly sure Jump is in his 20s) -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 03:18, 23 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Please provide some evidence of this? I'd love to know how this occurred. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 22:17, 22 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was speedy delete. Tone 20:28, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
A Bird in the Hand...[edit]
- A Bird in the Hand... (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
Suspected hoax, appears to be unverifiable. The user who created the article has added false information to several articles —Snigbrook 15:05, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Speedy delete as hoax. No mention of the alleged sitcom in the comprehensive Radio Times Guide to TV Comedy. . . Rcawsey (talk) 16:49, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Speedy delete. Has the distinctive smell off bullshit, as does almost everything else from the author. --DanielRigal (talk) 21:22, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete as a hoax -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 15:16, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Speedy Delete - Obvious hoax. T-95 (talk) 17:37, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was Keep, with the request to expand the article. Non-admin closure. Pastor Theo (talk) 00:06, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Department for Safety and Security[edit]
- Department for Safety and Security (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
Doesn't seem to have any real notability as an actual department (mainly internal stuff, like issuing passes to the New York HQ); certainly lists no third-party sources whatsoever. Even the official website - linked - is very limited indeed, containing little information about the department, and sourcing basically none of the material on the page. ╟─TreasuryTag►contribs─╢ 18:23, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - far from dealing with 'internal stuff' this department is involved with all of the UN's operations, assessing safety and security risks and implementing precautions. This is one of the major departments of the United Nations. Some of the importance of their work can be gauged from these sources. Each of the departments in United Nations Secretariat#Organization are worth a page. In this case, the article should be expanded to show their operational role and not deleted. TerriersFan (talk) 18:18, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - a couple of examples to show the significance of the role of this department. Here is the body advising in which areas of Somalia it was safe for humanitarian work and here the organisation advises on security in Gaza. TerriersFan (talk) 22:33, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- This AfD nomination was incomplete (missing step 3). It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 14:19, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep and Expand--H8erade (talk) 17:10, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Weak Keep if it actually is expanded from real sources. . We really should require distinctive titles for article like these. I am not quite sure they satisfy more than incidental mentions. DGG (talk) 18:11, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. Its a stub but its notable and has the potential to expand.Broadweighbabe (talk) 03:09, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. SoWhy 15:17, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Zuckerman number[edit]
- Zuckerman number (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
WP:NOT#OR Kmhkmh (talk) 13:16, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete -complicated process to get it listed - anyhow here are some more detailed reasons. The related article in the German WP was deleted a few days ago due to a lack of references and possible OF. In Tattersall (the given reference) the name "zuckerman number" is only mentioned on the side in an excercise (see [38]). Moreover there it is used only for base 10 (contrary to the definition in the article). Aside from Tattersall there seem to be no other sources - at least a preliminary search using google scholar, mathscinet and zentralblatt math hasn't turned up anything other than Tattersall. Googling yields only 2 somewhat reasonable references on OEIS and PlanetMath, however OEIS gives as reference Wikipedia (ouch!) and the PlanetMath entry lists only Tattersall and seems to be written by the same author (CompositeFan) as the wikipedia article. Moreover that author got blocked due to using socket accounts and seems to have left Wikipedia altogether. On the german WP there was a longer discussion and in the end all editors with a math background voted for deleting it, i suggest to do the same here as well, unless somebody can produce an reputable reference other than tattersal. Please note that the math part of the article is correct and somewhat natural, but without a reference in literature that constitutes original thought (Tattersall is not enough as explained above).--Kmhkmh (talk) 13:37, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - per Kmhkmh. NN -- Constructive editor (talk) 10:45, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. I couldn't find any additional references and I agree that the Tattersall reference is not quite enough for an article. By the way, the German discussion is at de:Wikipedia:Löschkandidaten/6. März 2009#Zuckerman-Zahl (gelöscht). -- Jitse Niesen (talk) 14:05, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment It's possible that an article about mathematician and prolific author Herbert S. Zuckerman would survive deletion, although in the shallow standards for Wikipedia notability, he's probably not as important as a ballplayer. Mandsford (talk) 18:10, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The mathematician Zuckerman most likely hasn't anything to do with that number to begin with. That aside this discussion is about the deletion of the current zuckerman number article due to lack of sources, it is not a discussion about Zuckerman, his merits as a mathematician or any potential article about Zuckerman himself. I don't think there are any objections for having the latter anyhow, at least not by me.--Kmhkmh (talk) 18:33, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Notability, with respect to a stand-alone article, requires "...significant coverage in reliable sources...", so one reference to "Zuckerman number" is not enough to establish it as a notable eponymous term. -- Crowsnest (talk) 07:16, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was already deleted -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 13:28, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
City Center Mall[edit]
- City Center Mall (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
nn website SlashChose (talk) 12:02, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Deleted under CSD A3, no content other than a template. Nyttend (talk) 13:08, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was keep. SoWhy 15:08, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Panos Papasoglu[edit]
- Panos Papasoglu (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
Contested CSD, notability is not asserted, not 3rd party references. Rtphokie (talk) 11:46, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete: I disagree with the contestor, who says that notability is asserted; but regardless of which one of us is right, notability clearly isn't proven. Nyttend (talk) 12:55, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. —David Eppstein (talk) 16:20, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Only one of his papers is cited it citebase, , and that by 4 other papers only (http://www.citebase.org/abstract?id=oai:arXiv.org:math/0201312). DGG (talk) 18:09, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. For this area, MathSciNet is the more appropriate tool to use. He has 14 papers listed there, five of which have numbers of citations in the 10-20 range (not exceptional, but not bad for mathematics papers — my experience is that mathematics citation numbers tend to be smaller than some other subjects and that MathSciNet numbers of citations tend to be less than half of the Google scholar numbers for the same papers). Several of the reviews are unusually long and thorough: a typical review there is just a one-paragraph abstract, often copied from the original paper's abstract, but MR1346209, MR2221253, and MR2300450 are signed reviews (by three different reviewers) that are considerably longer than that. I'm not convinced this is enough to show a pass of WP:PROF #1, but it at least demonstrates that he is a successful working research mathematician. —David Eppstein (talk) 20:52, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
*Delete I agree with Nyttend that being an assistant professor is not really an assertion for notability. DGG's citation data clearly show that WP:ACADEMIC is not met. --Crusio (talk) 18:18, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:00, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per above.Broadweighbabe (talk) 03:09, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Weak keep. I agree with David Eppstein on this one. Based on these citations, I am leaning toward a weak keep. He seems to be the sole author in the third most cited paper in the list. Having gotten his PhD in 1993, with these pubs he could be a senior faculty, possibly a full professor, in a pretty good (possibly not very research intensive) American university. So I would not place too much weight on the assistant professor designation. I’d say the subject either meets WP:PROF criterion #1 (significant impact in scholarly discipline, broadly construed), or is very close to meeting it.--Eric Yurken (talk) 21:36, 22 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I agree with the assessment that the "assistant professor" designation is misleading to Americans. I suspect Greece's academic ladder just works differently. I would expect someone like this to be tenured at a major research university in the US (although maybe not full, as Eric says).--C S (talk) 07:40, 23 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep per David Eppstein and Erik Yurken. Passes WP:PROF. This professor's research papers have been cited a significant number of times, so he has had much impact on his scholarly discipline. Cunard (talk) 01:08, 23 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Passes WP:PROF under criterion 1. This is not just a citation count, and more of an examination of his publications as listed on MathSciNet. Journals in which he has published include Annals of Mathematics, Inventiones Mathematicae, and Crelle's journal, which are more influential than the norm. RayTalk 04:16, 23 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Crelle's Journal has a link too. —David Eppstein (talk) 05:00, 23 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comments (1) Sometimes when notability is not asserted, the remedy is not to delete for lack of such assertion, but to add the assertion. Could someone who knows this material edit the article accordingly? (2) The bot that would normally notify the mathematics WikiProject of this nomination has had issues for several days and the notice did not appear. David Eppstein finally notified the project in recent hours. Could admins please refrain from closing this before more people who know about this weigh in? Michael Hardy (talk) 07:16, 23 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Strong keep. Probably if we delete Papasoglu we should delete all of the marginal researchers we keep every day. His 2005 Annals paper alone is a "significant impact in scholarly discipline". Instead of counting citations (although all his papers show good numbers on Google Scholar including this one), let's look at the quality of his papers and citations. The Annals paper is cited in introductory lectures on geometric group theory by Michael Kapovich, one of the big figures in the subject. Also, in Kapovich's problem list from an AIM workshop in 2005, we see this paper is the basis for section 7 of the list. The Annals is also the undisputed number one pure mathematics journal. If it were just this paper, maybe you could make a case for deletion (doubtful). But his overall body of work is substantial (journals like GAFA may not have the brand name recognition of Inventiones but are not to be sneezed at either). User:Nsk92 is an SME in this very topic. If further details are needed, he would be a good person to consult. --C S (talk) 07:35, 23 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. Panos Papasoglu has made great contributions in his field, geometric group theory, especialy with his paper in Annals of Mathematics, the biggest journal of mathematics. I have been told that from the next academic year he will be a professor in the University of Oxford. -- Arthur art (talk) 23:22, 20 March 2009 (UTC) (moved from talk page; this comment by creator of article seems to be "keep" so I have prefixed his remarks accordingly --C S (talk))[reply]
- Comment I am not too familiar with this fiueld so I am refraining from !voting. However, I am worried a bit by some of the arguments brought forward here. As far as I see, whether or not a researcher is notable does not depend at all on our evaluation of the quality or lack thereof of his work, nor of the quality and standing of the journals that he has published in. We are not the right people to judge those things and that is not what Wikipedia is for. Notability means that someone or someone's work has been noted and has made a notabe impact on the work of others. This can be sourced by showing citation counts or reviews or interviews. Bad researchers can be very notable (e.g. WP:FRINGE) and excellent researchers can be non-notable, according to WP's standards. That's how it should be, because we can judge notability, but should stay away from judging the works quality. By the way, I note that David Eppstein has not yet voted himself and remarked "not exceptional, but not bad " and " I'm not convinced this is enough to show a pass of WP:PROF #1", which is less than a ringing endorsement. I am a bit surprised, therefore, to see some "keep per David" votes... :-) --Crusio (talk) 08:19, 23 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Your comments reflect a big misunderstanding of AFD. As your opening comment implies, having familiarity with the field is relevant, in addition to citation counts and reviews. While commenters are discouraged from directly evaluating someone's work, certainly the quality of publication is important and indeed, regular AFD-ers like DGG often use knowledge of impact factors and other metrics to assert notability. Oftentimes, commenters are not knowledgable enough to make assessment of journals, but when there are actually experts available, it would be foolish to not use that additional info. In particular, knowing who's important and knowing what it means if such important people often cite a paper (even if the overall count is low) and in this case devote an entire chunk of his problem list based on the paper, this indicates significance, and does so in a way that is really more reliable than numerical scores. Also, as explicitly listed in WP:PROF, knowledge of an area is important in evaluating what the usual citation numbers are. In this case, Papasoglu's citations are well within the norm for an established researcher. --C S (talk) 08:38, 23 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Weak keep. Ok, fine, I was avoiding expressing a clear opinion because I didn't have one, but with the comment above from Crusio I think I should take a side. I think the papers in Crelle and Inventiones and Annals (journals famous enough that I can abbreviate them like this, with Crelle not even being part of the official title of the journal, and still any working mathematician will know which ones I mean) are not themselves notability, but are a strong sign that he is on the track of notability. These are the kind of journals that many mathematicians have dreams about someday publishing in, and he has three. I think the fact that one of his papers has 150+ citations in Google scholar is starting to show the impact needed to pass WP:PROF #1. I think that we shouldn't be here to evaluate the quality of his work, but on the other hand we shouldn't be setting our standards so strictly that we eliminate people who are clearly doing top-quality work merely because they are doing it in a low-key style. And most importantly for my opinion on this particular case, I think it's important to notice that his name appears in several others of our articles on technical mathematics: Bass-Serre theory, Geometric group theory, Dehn function and also on another biography, Zlil Sela. If someone's name is dropped once or twice, that's not enough for me to use it as an argument in this way, but I think this is starting to rise to the level where Wikipedia:Build the web comes into play. —David Eppstein (talk) 15:07, 23 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Even though we do not have a very clear policy on inclusion of biographies of living mathematicians, both experience and common sense dictate that an article should only be created if meaningful content can be put into it consistently with other wikipedia policies, especially, BLP and the use of secondary sources. I disagree that being an active research mathematician in itself is sufficient (for the record: I certainly think that he is). Are we seriously suggesting that anyone who published a paper in Annals or Inventiones or Crelle's should get an article in Wikipedia? Please, be real: that would be a hard to maintain and largely useless mess consisting of hundreds or possibly thousands of stubs liable to BLP issues and vandalism (and hence potentially annoying to the subjects). I see more and more instances of people creating a red link for every name of a mathematician whose paper is quoted on Wikipedia, and this cannot be a good thing. Is Wikipedia going to become "Who is who in mathematics", supported by quotes from Math Reviews?
- I really don't like to comment on biographical issues, but after reading some of the comments above, I don't know whether to laugh or cry. For example, CS thinks that the fact that one of Papasoglu's problems was mentioned in a problem list compiled by Misha Kapovich, a noted expert in the field, is significant. Please! Firstly, Misha Kapovich himself does not have an article (nor do I know what, besides a short description of his papers, could go into one), and the list in question is one of many research lists available on the arXiv, not even published as a paper. David says that some of his results are cited elsewhere on Wikipedia: I have looked at these references, and they are (with one exception) just cursory mentions of Papasoglu's work on the JSJ decomposition. I think that it would be a lot more productive to add a precise description of that work to the article on JSJ decomposition if anyone is up to the task. He also seems to suggest that we should turn Wikipedia into some kind of networking resource, and again, this seems to contradict to the basic principle that Wikipedia is not a directory or a similar repository of information (MathSciNet already has an automated tool called "author's profile" which seems to be much better suitable for that). One of the comments is simply a piece of gossip that should never have been mentioned. In summary, I think that we should get rid of the bunker mentality that the rest of the world ("the plebs", those who don't get thrilled by our fine mathematical flagship journals that moderately impress the deans at selected institutions during the tenure review) are out to get us, have a thorough policy debate on the criteria for inclusion, and be pragmatic about the whole thing. Arcfrk (talk) 03:47, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. WP:SNOW –Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 00:15, 23 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Carl Osman[edit]
- Carl Osman (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
This is a recreation of a previously deleted PROD. Fails notability criteria for WP:BIO and WP:ATHLETE. Individual is only a semi-pro player, has never played in one of the four fully professional and notable English leagues and fails Wikipedia:WikiProject Football/Notability guidelines. Despite the article's implication, he did not play for Everton FC, but rather their schoolboy club. — CactusWriter | needles 11:45, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Athletes-related deletion discussions. — — CactusWriter | needles 11:49, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete, there's no way that this guy is notable. Nyttend (talk) 12:53, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football related deletions. ChrisTheDude (talk) 13:30, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - seems to have played for several clubs but never at a professional level, so fails WP:ATHLETE. Couldn't find any sources to get him through the more general notability guideline either -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 13:31, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - Fails WP:ATHLETE. T-95 (talk) 17:35, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Playing semi-pro anything does not meet WP:ATHLETE.--Giants27 T/C 17:44, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete fails WP:ATHLETE. GiantSnowman 17:55, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. SoWhy 15:06, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Lynk Biotechnologies Pte Ltd[edit]
- Lynk Biotechnologies Pte Ltd (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
The original author had a copy of this article at his userpage and even created some related pages just to promote the above-mentioned company. Alexius08 (talk) 11:00, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete, not blatant advertising, but clearly promotional anyway. Nyttend (talk) 12:55, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete, clearly promotional. The promotional flavor of the text gives rise to a bit of lovely irony:
Lynk Biotech is fully equiped with an R&D and Quality department, to a GMP certified manufacturing facility, warehouse and distribution arm. With these infrastructure in place, it has the capability to develop its own proprietary technologies, translate them to efficacious products and commercialise them.
This is very rare of a Singapore company ... - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 14:23, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply] - Delete promotional piece. -- Alexf(talk) 15:06, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Hi there.I have made changes to the article. Please let me know if it is acceptable now. Thank you. --Mirubuffy (talk) 08:09, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. –Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 00:17, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Ali Sigari[edit]
- Ali Sigari (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
Apparent autobiography (see username) about an singer for whom no reliable sources exist. Official website is deadlink to domain host. Doesn't appear to meet WP:MUSIC because the website implies he self-released his music. Delete Mgm|(talk) 10:47, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Speedy Delete Self created biography for a non-notable musician.Bacchus87 (talk) 10:56, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Absolutely no evidence of notability; however, the claims of performing in front of twenty thousand fans definitely sounds significant enough to ward off a speedy. Nyttend (talk) 12:58, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete, but I agree, this is not a speedy. Give it proper time. --Tone 20:30, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was keep.
With the days passing since it's nomination on 19 March 2009, the sentiment of the !voters was clearly drifting away from deletion, so the question was not if but how to keep it. Keep and merge !votes are roughly equaling in strength of argument, with a slight numerical advantage for merge. But there is no consensus amongst those !voting merge as to where to merge it to, although they all agree that the information should be kept in Wikipedia. Given this, I closed it as "keep" for now but with no objection to a later merge if there is a consensus for it on the related talk page(s). SoWhy 15:03, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Sunday Express Dunblane controversy[edit]
- Sunday Express Dunblane controversy (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
Non notable attack against Paula Murray by bloggers - see the poorly and unsourced material before clean up in this and Paula Murray failing wp:blp#Sources and wp:SPS. All of that's fine for blogs, not for an encyclopedia: WP:COATRACK. See also Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Paula Murray. -- Jeandré, 2009-03-19t09:59z 09:59, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I think it's probably better to merge this into the actual Dunblane massacre article, than in a stand alone article. And I wouldn't say the subject was "non-notable" as it's now been referred to the PCC. 62.25.109.197 (talk) 11:13, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge - either with the Daily_Express#Controversial_themes section, or with the Dunblane massacre article as listed above. --David James Bailey (talk) 15:26, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- If someone can find more articles from major news sources like the Guardian piece (news.google doesn't have anything else yet), I would support a merge to Daily Express#Controversial themes, making the 2 articles now up for deletion redirects instead. -- Jeandré, 2009-03-19t20:05z
- The problem with expecting further mainstream press coverage of this issue is that the UK press is reluctant to report on PCC criticism, even if its about the coverage of rival papers. Only The Guardian, with its specialist Media section, tends to pick up on this kind of story (which it has in this case) - the other outlet which covers this sort of thing is Private Eye, but that is only biweekly. Amuchmoreexotic (talk) 18:13, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- If someone can find more articles from major news sources like the Guardian piece (news.google doesn't have anything else yet), I would support a merge to Daily Express#Controversial themes, making the 2 articles now up for deletion redirects instead. -- Jeandré, 2009-03-19t20:05z
- It's wrong to characterise the controversy as an "attack against Paula Murray by bloggers" - the Dunblane survivors themselves have complained to the Press Complaints Commission, which is considering the complaint. This is at least as notable as other press controversies which have their own pages on Wikipedia. At the least it is important enough to be added to the Dunblane massacre article. Also, doesn't the involvement of comedians and writers who have their own Wikipedia entries speak to notability? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Amuchmoreexotic (talk • contribs) 12:19, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete: This is not notable and has almost no link to the massacre to merit merging. However, it would be notable if the Sunday Express was sued and fined so much money it went out of business. But it won't. So it isn't. Not every referral to the PCC is notable or encyclopedic.--ML5 (talk) 12:34, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- This seems to be setting the bar to notability very high - there are many other newspaper controversies covered in Wikipedia which didn't involve the paper being forced out of business. Also, massacre survivors themselves are directly involved, in that they have complained to the PCC, so I disagree that there's "almost no link to the massacre". Amuchmoreexotic (talk) 08:07, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Yeah, I'm also unaware of the "notability = being forced out of business" rule. I've heard also that the Sunday Express intends to print an apology this week; if so, I think this definitely increases the notability aspect. I'd suggest waiting to see if this happens before making any decisions?
- OK, my fault for over-egging my point. What I should have said was Wikipedia is meant to be an on-line encyclopedia, not a place to report 'news'. Just because a newspaper may (or may not) be causing mischief to sell more newspapers and gets itself complained about, doesn't mean to say its actions are notable. I live in Scotland and I haven't seen any of this making headlines. Time will tell if this issue becomes properly notable. Delete the article, and let's see if anyone's talking about it in a couple of months.--ML5 (talk) 12:32, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- There is an unusual wrinkle in this particular case re: notability, in that the UK press tends not to give much coverage to PCC complaints in general. Journalists don't want to be seen to attack a newspaper which they may end up working at, and tabloid newspapers don't want to publicise the means of redress against them or how often they get things wrong. This story has been covered by one national newspaper, it directly involves another national newspaper, and it involves complaints made directly by two of the Dunblane survivors to the national newspaper watchdog. Is that not already notable enough to support at least a merge? Amuchmoreexotic (talk) 18:21, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- OK, my fault for over-egging my point. What I should have said was Wikipedia is meant to be an on-line encyclopedia, not a place to report 'news'. Just because a newspaper may (or may not) be causing mischief to sell more newspapers and gets itself complained about, doesn't mean to say its actions are notable. I live in Scotland and I haven't seen any of this making headlines. Time will tell if this issue becomes properly notable. Delete the article, and let's see if anyone's talking about it in a couple of months.--ML5 (talk) 12:32, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Speedy delete per nom Sceptre (talk) 13:10, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - this is becoming more notable by the day (Unfortunatley I can't cite a colleague mentioning it to me this morning on here =) and as such deletion would, IMO be premature RobertWrayUK (talk) 14:15, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Cautious merge - This seems a rather shameful piece of "journalism," given that all the survivors of the actual class attacked are by definition now 18 or 19 years old adults who are legally free to drink, have sex, and otherwise lead their lives as they choose. This does, however, appear to be turning into a genuine controversy, but at the moment would be better placed in the article proper. Nick Cooper (talk) 14:52, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge into the main article for the massacre. DGG (talk) 18:13, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete pernom, who said it better than I could. Eusebeus (talk) 20:31, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep, at least until the situation completely unfolds; consider merging into the Dunblane massacre article at that point. This is a fairly big deal here in Scotland; definitely notable. Spudtater (talk • contribs) 22:37, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Wikipedia has a world view which extends outside the US. This story is ery much an account of a notable event in the linear development of the Dunblane tragedy. doktorb wordsdeeds 23:28, 19 March 2009 (UTC)Keeep[reply]
- Merge or Keep Normally, this would be a straight speedy deletion, and when I saw these articles, and the Facebook announcements of their creation, my first thought was "this will have been deleted by the time I click the link". It is a lot better written than most articles which would otherwise be personal attacks though, and has at least made some effort to be in the appropriate style and to be referenced properly. I also think the controvers does seem to be becoming more notable, and while it might just die it might become a bit of a bigger thing as well, so I'd be fine with keeping it and merging later if it does die. Either way though it does warrant a section in the Dunblane Massacre article, I think it's notable enough for that if not it's own article. So, yeah, either is fine by me. Caissa's DeathAngel (talk) 00:44, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - This is a big enough story, still unfolding, to warrant it's own page. It is an event in itself, not directly linked to the tragedy but to issues of breach of privacy and Sunday Express sensationalist journalism. throwoutyourarms (talk) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.159.129.63 (talk) 01:06, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge into the main article for the massacre.Broadweighbabe (talk) 03:07, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge into Dunblane massacre article at the very least, though if the story continues to grow it could warrant its own article.--Victim Of Fate (talk) 13:15, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep possibly merge later.Captainzob (talk) 14:57, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep or merge into Dunblane massacre or Daily_Express#Controversial_themes. This remains controversial two weeks on and, as a side issue, is expanding into debate about the effectiveness of the Press Complaints Commission. DrDaveHPP (talk) 18:17, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge into Dunblane massacre. There is still plenty of room in that article to accomodate this side issue. JamesBurns (talk) 05:06, 22 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Since the paper has printed an apology, the controversy is now clearly notable. Can we remove the delete flag? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Amuchmoreexotic (talk • contribs) 10:04, 22 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- No, the process has started and so must be completed, especially as consensus is not exactly unanimous as would warrant early closure under WP:SNOW Caissa's DeathAngel (talk) 23:30, 22 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge into Daily_Express#Controversial_themes and reference in Dunblane massacre. This is a notable event, but not one that merits an individual article. —Neuro (talk) 15:33, 22 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Agree with this proposal. 87.66.3.68 (talk) 08:54, 23 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. I'm closing this early. Despite the sudden influx of canevassed supporters, consensus from established editors is very clear that this is unsalvagable original research. While the AfD has only been running a few days, there appears to be no benifit to keep it running longer. — Coren (talk) 14:29, 22 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Ahad's Constant[edit]
If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on another website, please note that this is not a majority vote, but instead a discussion among Wikipedia contributors. Wikipedia has policies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia's content, and consensus (agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes.
However, you are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end. Note: Comments may be tagged as follows: suspected single-purpose accounts:{{subst:spa|username}} ; suspected canvassed users: {{subst:canvassed|username}} ; accounts blocked for sockpuppetry: {{subst:csm|username}} or {{subst:csp|username}} . |
- Ahad's Constant (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
Notability: Abdul Ahad is an amateur astronomer and science fiction writer, not having published any peer-reviewed scientific article on this, nor refer other scientific publications to "Ahad's constant". This and several previous attempts to include material on him on Wikipedia are accompanied by external links to one of his web pages, with promotion of his SF books one click away. See also: Talk:Apparent magnitude#Ahad's_constant and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Abdul Ahad. -- Crowsnest (talk) 09:12, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
ahad break 1[edit]
- Delete. The original venue of publication here appears to have been The Sky This Week, an online-only publication of no significant repute. Given that the current top Google hit on a search for "Ahad's constant" is the Ahad constant's MySpace profile (warning: autoplay music), I'm pretty firmly convinced of the non-notability of this constant. Zetawoof(ζ) 09:38, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete: unsourced. -- Jeandré, 2009-03-19t10:18z
- Neutral. The issue seems to be purely one of sourcing, not the merits of Ahad's constant per se. No barriers to an article on this and the Ahad's sphere once they have been covered in more notable astronomy publications. Pomona17 (talk) 12:44, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep this article —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.183.158.72 (talk) 12:19, 19 March 2009 (UTC) — 75.183.158.72 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
- Delete Seems like I could as easily have "Nyttend's constant", some random number in some random field. Assuming that the idea of "total integrated brightness" makes sense (I don't know what it means, but I'm not an astronomy person) in this context, it must exist, but existence alone isn't sufficient for an article. Nyttend (talk) 13:02, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep: The Solar constant is a measure of the light flux of the Sun falling on the Earth at -26.7 magnitudes. this is measuring the light from the rest of the universe (excluding the sun) added together. See Ahad's blog [39] and the comments from his astronomy colleagues there too —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.107.116.43 (talk) 13:21, 19 March 2009 (UTC) Keep — 81.107.116.43 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
- Delete. The article is currently in a lousy shape/format, but more importantly it does not list a single acceptable reference.--Kmhkmh (talk) 13:46, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
ahad break 2[edit]
- Keep This is an important piece of research. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.220.237.203 (talk) 15:19, 19 March 2009 (UTC) — 74.220.237.203 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
- Keep The formula for estimating the magnitude of light should be available to wikipedia readers. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.208.35.232 (talk) 15:40, 19 March 2009 (UTC) — 90.208.35.232 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
- Delete: Not only does the article as it stands fail to offer any reliable source citations, Google Scholar has never heard of it. Prominent hits in Google websearch are from blogs and forums, which don't meet RS requirements. May become notable, but is not currently. Gonzonoir (talk) 16:13, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep I see no reason other than dictatorial reasoning for this to be deleted. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Thehairymob (talk • contribs) 16:56, 19 March 2009 (UTC) — Thehairymob (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
- Keep:This is not just random numbers in a random field as commented by 'Nyttend'. Since you state you are not an Astronomer, with all due respect, do you have a right to vote on a constant you do not understand? I am an Astronomer, and Mr Abdul Ahad's constant is a well-thought and mathematically calculated derivative. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.200.83.63 (talk) 19:21, 19 March 2009 (UTC) — 90.200.83.63 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
- May I point out that on Wikipedia anyone is entitled to comment and !vote in these discussions? One doesn't have to show one's professional credentials, any more than to vote in a General Election one has to show that one has studied Politics. It's not a voting procedure whereby the number of Keeps and Deletes are counted. It's supposed to be a reasoned discussion, and the arguments put forward are taken into account bearing in mind the relevant Wikipedia policies. Peridon (talk) 21:31, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- keep —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.3.4.45 (talk • contribs) 20:01, 19 March 2009 — 82.3.4.45 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
ahad break 3[edit]
- keep —Preceding unsigned comment added by John McCue (talk • contribs) 20:09, 19 March 2009 (UTC) — John McCue (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
- Delete per the null result from google scholar - that's a pretty foolproof sign that something is made up. Eusebeus (talk) 20:33, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I have just e-mailed David Oesper and asked him to submit the refereed paper to appear on Google Scholar; this won't happen immediately, but it will be there in due course. --Constructive editor (talk) 23:02, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Request Could you also let us know who refereed the paper? There's no indication I can find in it of referees. Also, the reference to the Cambridge Encyclopaedia: Is it a reference to Ahad being mentioned in there, or merely a reference to some information derived from there? I might be able to check on Monday (if the office don't call me in...) but it would save me a trip to the library if someone has this info handy. Peridon (talk) 15:53, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- KEEP--AHAD IS A VERY INTELIGENT YOUNG SCIENTIST —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.227.166.224 (talk) 20:55, 19 March 2009 (UTC) — 71.227.166.224 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
- Delete. I see no coverage of this by reputable astronomers, except those disparaging the result (mainly on discussion forums, so not reliable sources) as pointless. JulesH (talk) 21:06, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- David Oesper's The Sky This Week has been running continuously for over 10 years and is a notable astronomy publication that is updated weekly. The sky diary appearing there is used by astronomers, both amateurs and professionals alike. -- Constructive editor (talk) 23:02, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- A single, self-published sourced. I don't see any evidence that the articles on this particular site are considered particularly important or reliable by anyone. I note that the author is at least a professionally-published expert on the topic, having coauthored a paper that appeared in Science, so it squeaks past WP:V, but is still not adequate for the purposes of meeting the guideline WP:N. JulesH (talk) 12:06, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- David Oesper's The Sky This Week has been running continuously for over 10 years and is a notable astronomy publication that is updated weekly. The sky diary appearing there is used by astronomers, both amateurs and professionals alike. -- Constructive editor (talk) 23:02, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Regretful Delete as it stands. I feel there could be something of interest in the idea, one I've wondered about myself (idle moment). (With my maths, no chance of working it out.) I am slightly concerned about the referred to page http://uk.geocities.com/aa_spaceagent/ahads_sphere.htm which in turn links to 'the refereed paper' - I'm not sure who has refereed it, or where. Most ghits are forums or self published stuff, and I understand that the original publication of the Constant was self published. As a step towards the ladder, self publishing may be necessary. For inclusion in an encyclopaedia, it doesn't really count - until there are plenty of outside references as well. Peridon (talk) 21:23, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
ahad break 4[edit]
- Keep this article. The best I can tell the ones who want it deleted are those without the background or education to formulate a theory of their own. Ahad must be given credit for the intelligent work he has done. Harpe — E. Don Harpe (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
- Note to visiting voters Rather than just saying 'Keep because Ahad's brilliant and Wikipedians are ignorant', why not prove us ignorant by finding the reliable outside references that we cannot seem to? No matter how brilliant he may be, he won't be regarded as notable here without. We like to see things with proof. Reliable documented proof. Not blogs or forums (with certain rare exceptions). Peridon (talk) 22:34, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. This is not a forum but an encyclopedic endeavor and the public deserves the opportunity to read about this scientific thought. It may then be debated in other venues. Here, it should remain. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.233.39.189 (talk) 22:42, 19 March 2009 (UTC) — 67.233.39.189 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
- Keep - the article appeared as barely a one line stub and was nominated for deletion so rapidly without the chance for any editorial expansion, suggests a conflict of interest amongst Wikipedians to get rid of it pretty pronto. The rule book does state somewhere that new articles should not be nominated for deletion until they are sufficiently fleshed out so as to make their worth more established -- Constructive editor (talk) 23:02, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The article has been here for two weeks before being nominated for deletion. Regarding interests: the following diffs ([40], [41], [42], [43], [44]), all on different articles, are examples of material on Abdul Ahad, added or re-instated by Constructive editor. Also see this version of Constructive editor's talk page. -- Crowsnest (talk) 01:15, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- the guidelines clearly state that unsourced articles may be subject to deletion and original thought/research or private theories are a mandatory reason for deletion. There is no "grace period" needed for that. In any case the listed for deletion process still allows at least 7 days to fix shortcomings of the article, but that doesn't seem to happen here either anyhow. Please read Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not --Kmhkmh (talk) 04:43, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
ahad break 5[edit]
- Keep Other wise scientists have been doubted. We need to encourage ideas. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.183.158.72 (talk) 23:31, 19 March 2009 (UTC) — 75.183.158.72 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
- KEEP All theories should be available for discussion and review. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 4.179.52.230 (talk) 01:08, 20 March 2009 (UTC) — 4.179.52.230 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
- Comment: As already pointed out, this is not a voting process, but the aim is to build consensus (see e.g. WP:CONSENSUS#Consensus is not in numbers). It may also be helpful, before contributing, to have a look at WP:AFD#How to discuss an AfD and WP:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions. -- Crowsnest (talk) 00:29, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- KEEP —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.110.231.163 (talk) 04:14, 20 March 2009 (UTC) — 71.110.231.163 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
- comment: This "keep spam" is kinda close to vandalism and doesn't really increase the article's chances either. Note that WP is an encyclopedia and not popularity contest.--Kmhkmh (talk) 04:28, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Is the policy here to recognise only the deletes and ignore the keeps? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.208.35.232 (talk) 16:12, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- comment: Hi- the policy is to assess both keep and delete comments, to see how far they engage with our consensus-based policies on the encyclopedia's scope: specifically notability, verifiability, and sourcing standards. The deletion discussion is a place to assess an individual article's compliance with those policies. Gonzonoir (talk) 16:21, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Regretful Delete - while Ahad might have some potential in the future, neither this "constant" nor its creator are notable, yet. So I would delete and salt, but not "indef salt" it. This idea must be published elsewhere first, then be added to Wikipedia. I would love to publish some of my own ideas here, but WP is not a publisher of original research. Good luck to Ahad and his friends. Bearian (talk) 15:06, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Agree, Ahad might get to have his own article someday. --Enric Naval (talk) 01:24, 22 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete An irretrievably vague definition ("total integrated brightness of the universe" ???) and no reliable sources. Gandalf61 (talk) 16:18, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- You're 2 light years out from the solar system in space. You hold out the palm of your hand in front of you. Could you hope to see it? Is there enough star light shining onto the palm of your hand? The only way you can answer this question is by evaluating Ahad's constant at that vantage point in space :) Constructive editor (talk) 18:57, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Why "2 light years out from the solar system" ? Why not at the galactic core ? Why not in inter-galactic space ? Why not in a molecular cloud ? Is it only a measure of visible light intensity - if so why ? Like I said - irretrievably vague definition. At best this gives you a measure of the local density of stars and the transparency of the local interstellar medium at a given wavelength - so not a "constant" at all. Gandalf61 (talk) 15:27, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Being 2 light-years out removes the contribution of light from the sun to the extent it becomes just another star in the interstellar sky. Why does this equation measure flux only in visible light? Well the answer is pretty simple. If you are trying to "see" the palm of your hand with your eyes, I doubt very much if you would be quantifying the X-ray flux :) Is it a "constant"? For the total amount of visible light illuminating the Earth, excluding the solar contribution, yes it is a true constant. For measuring the distance of the Ahad radius, you'd use this constant, but for pretty much everywhere else in the universe the number would be different.Constructive editor (talk) 22:19, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment My point is that none of the extra conditions you have added (2 lights years out from the solar system, visible wavelengths) are in the definition as it appears in the article. Now, if you add those conditions (citing a reliable source, of course) then you would have a definition that is a bit more precise - but it is then too arbitrary to be useful. Anyway, this is all academic until/unless an independent, reliable source is provided for this usage of the term "Ahad's constant". Gandalf61 (talk) 10:32, 22 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Why "2 light years out from the solar system" ? Why not at the galactic core ? Why not in inter-galactic space ? Why not in a molecular cloud ? Is it only a measure of visible light intensity - if so why ? Like I said - irretrievably vague definition. At best this gives you a measure of the local density of stars and the transparency of the local interstellar medium at a given wavelength - so not a "constant" at all. Gandalf61 (talk) 15:27, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- If you actually ARE 2 light years out, why don't you just look? Besides which, at 2 light years, you must be in or just outside a space craft. Nearest known planet outside our system is about 4 light years. And you'd have to have the catalogue of stars visible from that point, although it shouldn't be too much different that close to here - things get rather different closer to the centre of the galaxy and out on the fringes. Don't get me wrong. I think there could be some use in this thing - perhaps in a totally different area of study. Unfortunately, potential is not for encyclopaedias. Please do read the policies. If you don't like them, start another encyclopaedia. If you agree they're the rules one has to abide by, FIND THE REFERENCES we keep on about. And don't keep parroting 'keep keep'. Discuss and REFER. Peridon (talk) 19:22, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Catalog data for stars in this part of the Milky Way galaxy is now being mapped to the n-th degree of detail since precision astrometry missions, such as Hipparcos. Databases that hold the apparent magnitudes, absolute magnitudes and distances to stars relative to Sol can be used to compute their light contribution at any given point in 3D space, by applying the distance-luminosity equations and running them through the algorithm of Ahad's constant (or Ahad's magnitude for want of a better term).Constructive editor (talk) 22:19, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
ahad break 6[edit]
- see also 82.3.4.45's "keep" on 20:01, 19 March 2009. -- Crowsnest (talk) 20:13, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. No scholarly citations, no book citations, and virtually all of the only ~170 Ghits are to some kind of self-published source. Obviously non-notable. Someguy1221 (talk) 23:52, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. I had a look at the thread that Crowsnest linked, and there's an entry where he spells out a list of links that were supposed to prove notability for this article. Four of them are the same article, written by the same person, and published in four different websites/newspapers. Another one is a non-reliable source, and most of the others talk about Ahad the person, not the constant. I think it's safe to say that not even Mr. Ahad can establish this article's notability at this point in time. Matt (talk) 02:58, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- keep it here : hiya, i'm one of Abdul Ahad's myspace friends :) this is a good physics invention, don't make any sense to hit delete on it. See the cambridge star atlas list on his paper [45]. k bye! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Nozomi44 (talk • contribs) 10:37, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. The paper gives four valid references, including the Cambridge Encyclopedia of Stars. The deletion criteria is flawed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.61.152.102 (talk) 12:40, 21 March 2009 (UTC) — 24.61.152.102 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
- Comment The deletion criteria may be flawed. (Incidentally, they are plural. Criteria is followed by 'are' not 'is'. A single one is a criterion.) That's not the point of this discussion. If you don't like them, post a suggestion for improvement in the appropriate place - or go to somewhere that accepts everything regardless. Using this argument here is a bit like telling the traffic cop that there shouldn't be a speed limit just there because it's a good bit of road. He may agree with you, but you still get the ticket. The point of this discussion is notability under the current criteria. And if you think other articles fail, do what we do. Tag them. Peridon (talk) 14:30, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Interesting read Well, I thought so... http://www.hilpers.org/472413-scientist-quantifies-the-darkness-of Please read right down. Peridon (talk) 15:58, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Ahad's Constant has acquired distinction through his writings and popular culture. Most obscure scientific numbers are only confined to academic journals. This deserves a WP entry for gaining notoriety in a different kind of way. 74.220.237.224 (talk) 16:29, 21 March 2009 (UTC)hjw[reply]
- Delete. Clearly original research. Doctorfluffy (robe and wizard hat) 21:06, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per Zetawoof. Flunks WP:NEO. THF (talk) 00:00, 22 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete single line article lacking the multiple RS references required for WP:N. Artw (talk) 00:21, 22 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. The concept may have some notability (although it's difficult to trace, not having a well-defined name), but Ahad does not, including not being associated with the concept by a reliable source. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 00:24, 22 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- And I was here from ANI, as well, but I read the article and the reference before commenting. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 01:32, 22 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete- clearly original research. The multitude of SPA votes should be ingored totally because of the shameless canvassing going on (well done THF for finding this). Reyk YO! 00:25, 22 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - the original article seems to be this one, incl. some references to WP and also linking to some other sites, [46] [47] [48] [49]. His constant, first introduced in 2004 has only 167 Ghits five years later, so it's either widely ignored or not notable enough. --Avant-garde a clue-hexaChord2 00:35, 22 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment The first three links are author's (Ahad) own creation and the last two references more legitimate refs but do not refer the brightness magnitude in space as Ahad's constant.--Louisprandtl (talk) 01:31, 22 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete I'm here from ANI, where this was just brought up along with evidence of canvassing. This doesn't meet WP:NEO and the article as stands is original research. ThemFromSpace 00:43, 22 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete- Saw this on ANI. The article [[50]] in the bibliography links to Ahad's paper [51] which was self published. The author self proclaimed it to be peer reviewed. It has no reference or links to reputable Astronomy journals. The author has no basic astronomy training [52], and lacks basic knowledge of light transmission and intensity in space. The closest research in the area is probably Night Sky Luminescence in Space [53]--Louisprandtl (talk) 00:54, 22 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete (I also spotted this on ANI) Ahad needs to write a paper with his theory and get it published on some notable astronomical journal. As it stands, it seems that the theory has been only mentioned on an online astronomy colum http://www.skythisweek.info/ from David Oesper, who has co-authored a university press book on observational astronomy (this indicates that it's not a hoax, but it still needs to be cleared throught some peer-review process to make sure that it's correct :P ). It's nice, but not it's enough notability at all to make an article on it as a notable theory.
- P.D.: he also mentions "Journal of British Astronomical Association (Letter in Vol 115(5), Oct 2005)", but's that's a letter sent to the journal, not an article, (maybe he even sent it himself and all). Looking at his self-compiled list of places where his theory is mentioned (see fifth comment in link) he lists a fantasy novel written by himself ("First Ark to Alpha Centauri") and wikipedia itself.... The rest fall somewhere between "local source" and "talks about the theory only in the context of covering the author, while making a namecheck of all the authot has done". I doubt that any of those show actual notability for the theory. --Enric Naval (talk) 01:02, 22 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment for closing admin, please read carefully Note that several of the keep votes appear to be the result of canvassing at this page. Note also that the first post there is apparently from Ahad himself, who says, "I'm actually curious as to who created the article so soon. Was it anybody from this forum I wonder? I was hoping it could have waited until more reliable sources became available." He did not, however, attempt to dissuade people from casting "keep" !votes. Looie496 (talk) 02:09, 22 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- delete one self-published source (to "ahad") no other information allowing for verification, etc... Should have been speedy.Bali ultimate (talk) 02:56, 22 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete All the references are to blogs. This was already kicked out of Scientific_phenomena_named_after_people last month. --John Nagle (talk) 05:25, 22 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete and Salt. I'll go one further than most here. This article,even at it's >2kb most robust, lacked any sources which demonstrated, within the article, any notability or significance. All we have is one man's claim that he's done something truly notable; Four hours after a sack full of taco bell, I can make the same claim, but it's equally without merit. As others have mentioned, off Wikipedia, there is no reliable sourcing by people with the scientific acumen to evaluate the concept and declare it fundamentally sound; above, one Wikipedia editor notes that even the opposite has only occurred once. Combine that with the rampant Canvassing and meatpuppetry occurring, and SALTing becomes a reasonable option to preclude this material being spammed to Wikipedia over and over; no doubt the editor who created the page has an off-wiki copy and will send it out to ensure all those solicited voters restart the page. SALT it. Should someone find him to be correct, we can unSalt after a VP or AN request. ThuranX (talk) 05:47, 22 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete no coverage in third-party reliable sources has been presented, article fails WP:N. Hut 8.5 10:56, 22 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment There is a discussion going on at the site linked above by Crowsnest ( http://www.publishedauthors.org/chatter-box-f3/cast-your-votes-for-ahad-s-constant-t1979.htm ), where some of the 'fan club' are more seriously taking in what we are saying. The possibility of userfication has been raised, in response to a query as to whether we have an 'unverified' category. Mr Ahad hasn't yet put in an appearance in this part of the debate, and nor has the gentleman who claims the creation of the article. Peridon (talk) 11:53, 22 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment on previous research into the same subject. The non-refereed letter, mentioned by Enric Naval, was indeed written by Abdul Ahad and can be obtained from the British Astronomical Association website: [55].
What is very interesting, is the Usenet discussion (at sci.astro.amateur) mentioned at the bottom of Ahad's letter. In this discussion, in March 2004 at apparently the start of Ahad's calculations, William C. Keel gives references to published related work, from which he estimates the integrated brightness as -5.85. His estimate is based on: F.E. Roach, ed. (1973), The light of the night sky, Springer, ISBN 9027702934, pages 22–24, where the results of a calculation similar to Ahad's are presented (but also giving more detail, for instance the dependence of brightness on galactic latitude). So, as far as I can see (I am not an astronomer), Ahad is not the first in doing such a research. I am afraid he will have little chance that terms like "Ahad's constant", "Ahad's magnitude", "Ahad's radius" or "Ahad's sphere" will become common phrases in science. -- Crowsnest (talk) 12:30, 22 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment The quantity determined by Abdul Ahad in his original line of inquiry was the brightness of the interstellar night sky, when seen from a hypothetical vantage point going 2.2 light-years beyond the Solar System. And perhaps more importantly, the level of illumination that an observer would experience from such locales. That is a rather different sphere of thought from saying "how much do all the stars added together contribute to the night sky brightness here on Earth" (F.E. Roach et al in the book you mention). Just a small observation. - Constructive editor (talk) 14:23, 22 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was speedy delete. WP:CSD#G3 - Very blatant hoax Hersfold (t/a/c) 07:32, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Party Animal Magazine[edit]
- Party Animal Magazine (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
Hoax. The "references" are to NY Times articles about US News and World Report. "Party Animal Magazine" is from a flash application for making fake magazines[56]. Flopsy Mopsy and Cottonmouth (talk) 07:17, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep, Excellent page on a credible magazine from the past. oooooooosss (talk) 07:21, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, I see no reason to delete, I remember this magazine. Jpowell82 (talk) 07:25, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was to keep the article.
John Steckley[edit]
- John Steckley (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
No evidence presented he meets criteria for Wikipedia:Notability (academics), discussed on his talk page Talk:John Steckley with both editors agreeing he likely doesn't meet notability. — raeky (talk | edits) 07:01, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete No evidence he meets criteria for notability. See discussion on talk page linked above. — raeky (talk | edits) 07:06, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Tentative delete as per nom, but maybe some information could be transferred to the page on Huron language? Mabalu (talk) 15:01, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. —David Eppstein (talk) 16:20, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Just compared both articles - the Huron language article and the one being considered for deletion. I think there's a definite case for transferring the relevant part of Steckley's bio to that page, as he is obviously very closely linked to Wyandot/Huron languages and their culture, and it sounds like he's saved the language from being completely forgotten. So perhaps redirect the page to Wyandot language with a summary of Steckley's contributions to the subject on that page?Mabalu (talk) 17:38, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep The person rescuing or trying to rescue a language is notable. Better sources would help, as well as some explanation of the items in the bibliography..DGG (talk) 18:32, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- That info should be presented on that language's page (which it is), but if that's all hes done does that qualify him as notable under the criteria of Wikipedia:Notability (academics)? I think it would be a stretch. — raeky (talk | edits) 18:54, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge to Wyandot language. Individual fails our academic notability test, but his efforts could be usefully added to that article. (As a small point of clarification, can you really rescue a language that is extinct, which Huron has been for a hundred + years at least?) Eusebeus (talk) 20:38, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep per DGG.Broadweighbabe (talk) 03:05, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Rescuing a language definitely qualifies him as notable under criteria #1 of Wikipedia:Notability (academics). --H8erade (talk) 03:42, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- "The person's research has made significant impact in their scholarly discipline, broadly construed, as demonstrated by independent reliable sources." Find the reliable sources that this language has made a significant impact in his discipline and I'll agree with you. But I don't think those exist. — raeky (talk | edits) 05:32, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete nothing qualifies him as notable except for notability. Unless he's actually been the subject of independent sources, it doesn't matter what he's done.--Prosfilaes (talk) 04:04, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Per above keeps. Seems like he is the world expert in a small field. Gnews hits like- the Toronto Star article about him cited in the article, book review like [57] go toward satisfying WP:BIO (answering User:Prosfilaes's objection) or WP:PROF #7. Gscholar results don't show many citations, but I think this just shows its defects in the humanities. [58] also goes toward WP:BIO and mentions:"His best-selling book came with Full Circle: Canada’s First Nations written with fellow Bolton resident, Bryan Cummins whose specialty is the Cree nation. This introduction to Canada’s first peoples has sold over 10,000 copies and is used in College and University courses across Canada.", which goes toward WP:PROF #4 (see note 12). About 100 good gbooks hits show he is quite respected in his field. e.g. [59], [60] and [61] apparently a book review which ends " It belongs in every academic library as well. John Steckley has contributed an essential work to the field." He was also president of the Ontario Archaeological society in the 90s.[62] . John Z (talk) 04:49, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Nice collection of sources, I wasn't aware of all the resources you used to do the search. — raeky (talk | edits) 05:35, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I think if there is reliable sources that his books are used as text books in major universities that might qualify him for notability. Regardless the page needs serious work. In light of all the references presented by John Z, I withdraw my AfD and request a speedy keep. He likely does scape by and is notable enough for his own page with all his published books and positions hes held. — raeky (talk | edits) 05:43, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Because of Prosfilaes' delete comment, I think we can't do a speedy close. But this seems to be headed for a keep regardless, so likely the point will soon be moot. —David Eppstein (talk) 16:25, 23 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I think if there is reliable sources that his books are used as text books in major universities that might qualify him for notability. Regardless the page needs serious work. In light of all the references presented by John Z, I withdraw my AfD and request a speedy keep. He likely does scape by and is notable enough for his own page with all his published books and positions hes held. — raeky (talk | edits) 05:43, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Nice collection of sources, I wasn't aware of all the resources you used to do the search. — raeky (talk | edits) 05:35, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:01, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. MBisanz talk 05:26, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
CSS Reference Manual[edit]
- CSS Reference Manual (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
Non-notable, redundant (to reference work & manual, etc.), original research (unreferenced), link list. Reisio (talk) 06:51, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Not notable, and appears to exist as an excuse to post external links to sites that have been banned from the Cascading Style Sheets and HTML articles, among others. —mjb (talk) 06:55, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Yes, a CSS reference manual is a reference manual for CSS - but we knew that already. What this article is, is a WP:COATRACK for external links. There's no actual content here which isn't already present at CSS, where it belongs. Zetawoof(ζ) 07:11, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. a) Which sites we're banned from the Cascading Style Sheets and HTML articles? Provide proof for that please, all links seem valid. b) The Cascading Style Sheets article lacks an in-depth discussion of common / contemporary CSS usage among web developers, being the focal topic of this article. c) The 'History' part is in its current form, I agree, somewhat redundant compared to the Cascading Style Sheets article, but it can serve as an introduction to the cross-browser inconsistencies providing the need for a CSS reference overview to solve web site appearance problems. d) The article is still young and needs work. I'll work on it myself since I find it potentially useful.Clfavreaux 09:42, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I see no "in-depth discussion of common / contemporary CSS usage" in this article - it's hardly long enough to discuss anything in depth, and the closest it comes to broaching the subject is by tangentially mentioning that web developers use CSS to build web pages. That much and more is already stated pretty clearly on the main CSS page, and even if it weren't, the correct solution would not be to add a section it to an article on a different topic. Zetawoof(ζ)
- "Which sites we're banned from the Cascading Style Sheets and HTML articles?"
Do you see any of those links in the Cascading Style Sheets and HTML articles? ¦ Reisio (talk) 09:19, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply] - I was editing my comments while receiving a network conflict. Please let me elaborate. Clfavreaux 10:27, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Multiple CSS incompatibilities exist among different browsers, caused by deviations on CSS standards by browser makers. These cross-browser incompatibilities lead to severe problems among web developers that are challenged with the task of consistent appearance of their web sites. Hence the need for a practical overview of common CSS usage exists, and that is exactly what the initial author of this article was trying to provide. Hence, this article is indeed notable. Further, the absence of the given links in the Cascading Style Sheets article forms the sole basis for these links. A link being absent is NOT the same as a link being banned, that is trivial. Again, let me enhance the contents of this article.Clfavreaux 10:36, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm not quite sure what you're getting at - yes, CSS compatibility issues exist, but they're already discussed at CSS#Browser support. If what you're suggesting is that you want to provide information on details of CSS compatibility issues here, this isn't an appropriate place to do so. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not an instruction manual. If you're actually trying to write a "CSS reference manual", WikiBooks may be a more appropriate location - indeed, they already have a book on CSS which you may be interested in contributing to. Zetawoof(ζ) 10:07, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- It's hard to imagine that you, Clfavreaux, someone with no edits whatsoever except in this discussion, have come here without an agenda that is at odds with Wikipedia goals. ¦ Reisio (talk) 10:20, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The purpose of an encyclopedia is to provide knowledge to its users. The article is meant to let users know about the existence of CSS Reference Manuals that guide web developers towards proper / safe / compatible CSS usage, thus solving the browser inconsistencies I just mentioned. The initial author of this article clearly did not intend to put such a reference manual itself on wikipedia; he or she is merely trying to provide an overview of well-known existing manuals. Or are you claiming that the given links / reference manuals are invalid? Clfavreaux 11:23, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Are you now questioning my credibility as well? This happens to be a part of my personal body of knowledge and I can proove that if you would just let me work on this article itself instead of commenting on you and defending myself over and over again. How can one ever start contributing to Wikipedia without a trackrecord on Wikipedia itself? Clfavreaux 11:27, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- As a matter of fact, I was looking for CSS Reference Manuals myself for quite some time and I've noticed that a decent overview of quick reference manuals was missing. When I found out about this article, and at the same time noticed that it was AfD'd by you, Reisio, I felt encouraged to defend the initial author as well as this article's (potential) notability. Since you have stopped (which I can understand) discussing my valid arguments and have taken it to a personal level, are you now perhaps also suggesting that Wikipedia itself is not about decentral contribution by authors around the globe? Are you perhaps stating that contributing to Wikipedia is limited to those with an "undisputed trackrecord" as yourself "Reisio" (nice authoratative nickname btw...)? I haven't seen your PhD credentials either. Let's take it back to the content discussion again, instead of the mud throwing level that you started just now. Or let's work on the article itself together with the initial author of it (?), I suggest. Or is that of no relevance since you will delete good and hard work anyway Reisio? Please let me know.Clfavreaux 11:59, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Ahh, you should have just asked me that Reisio! I entered "CSS Reference" in the little search box at the left side of the Wikipedia screen. Or are you now disputing the notability of that search box as well? Now could you PLEASE be so kind to let me work on this article, or tell me that that is of no use because you will delete the article anyway Reisio? If so, please let me know NOW so I can report that to the proper authorities later. Clfavreaux 12:17, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- As a matter of fact: YES! And how did you find out about it? Is there any difference? Do you perhaps have a conflict of interests yourself Reisio? It's clear that you have failed to answer my questions, and I am beginning to find that suspicious myself, while on the other hand I have answered all of yours very quickly and decently. So now please, and this is the last time I'm ASKING you: will you delete this article once it has been enhanced to generally accepted Wikipidia standards, or will you not? Clfavreaux 12:42, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- That's your problem then. Fact: You have neglected to answer several of my questions, including the one whether you will or will not delete the article before given the chance to enhance, or even at the point it has already achieved Wikipedia standards. Fact: you have long stopped discussing the article on qualitative aspects, and instead you have taken it to a mere personal level in which you've questioned my credibility without me even having initiated the article. I will now work on the article, and if you delete it or have it deleted by other people for mal reasons, I will report you on a personal level. Have a nice day.Clfavreaux 13:01, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Re: banned links: since mid-2006, the curators of the HTML article, myself included, have been collaborating to keep the external links in that article of exceptional quality. We've been favoring current, accurate, relatively ad-free content and requiring that any additions go through a process of nomination and justification. Very few tutorial sites get approved. Please look through the discussion archives, especially Talk:HTML/Archive 2, where you'll see W3Schools in particular wasn't looked upon with favor. I haven't been monitoring the CSS article, but based on the external links there, and the presence of the Open Directory Project link, it looks like they've undergone a similar clampdown on spam & tutorial linking, perhaps even moreso than on the HTML article. —mjb (talk) 04:42, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Re: The article is meant to let users know about the existence of CSS Reference Manuals that guide web developers towards proper / safe / compatible CSS usage, thus solving the browser inconsistencies I just mentioned.: In other words, the article is original research and a coatrack/directory and a (meta-)how-to. Its external links are exclusively to primary sources (manuals themselves) rather than to academic or newsworthy articles about such manuals. As such, the links and even the article itself are not about the topic of the article; rather, the article is about them. But it's not even that, because the way it's currently written, the 'history' is about CSS in general, not manuals. The article cites not one reliable, credible, third-party, disinterested source about CSS reference manuals. Surely if the topic of these reference manuals is notable, it would've been written about somewhere else. I hate to be one of those "show me where this was written about in the New York Times" people, but think about it: you've basically admitted that this article's point is to be a link farm. It's for an audience of CSS scholars, whereas it should be for scholars of markup manuals, past & present, good & bad. —mjb (talk) 04:42, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. Dear people, I am the person that initially started with this article, and I am shocked about all the fuss about it. I merely went to bed last night, therefore did not have time then to enhance the article, and that is exactly what I am going to do now. I want to thank Clfavreaux for defending me and my article, and want to make clear that I have no association whatsoever to him. Johnnybravo2009 12:39, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Johnnybravo, I wasn't defending you, I was purely defending the contents of the article and its intention. For now, please help along to make the article 'notable' according to the Wikipedia standards. Clfavreaux 13:46, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- John, I have altered the structure of the article, providing a more scientific basis for a "new" CSS article on Wikipedia.org such as this, instead of just adding more information to the Cascading Style Sheets article. Further, I think it's a good idea to create a more 'exhaustive' list of external CSS Reference Manuals, therefore a) generate a decent starting point (or central hub as I've labeled it in the article) for CSS problem solving, and b) making absolutely clear to people such as Reisio that absolutely zero self-benefit is involved in creating these outlinks (instead of just a couple of them). Do you agree John? Regards...Clfavreaux 15:46, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks for your additions to my article. This is much more constructive than just flagging it for deletion. Unfortunately it's already flagged now, so we'll just have to wait for a decision from who ever reviews this article. Johnnybravo2009 (talk) 15:14, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- It is not your article. Nobody owns articles here. MuZemike 16:50, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- @MuZemike: if you know all the policies so well, how come you have forgotten the "don't bite newcomers" policy? Clfavreaux 17:19, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- My apologies, i ofcourse meant to say the article i started. Johnnybravo2009 (talk) 17:11, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- It is not your article. Nobody owns articles here. MuZemike 16:50, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks for your additions to my article. This is much more constructive than just flagging it for deletion. Unfortunately it's already flagged now, so we'll just have to wait for a decision from who ever reviews this article. Johnnybravo2009 (talk) 15:14, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete, we're close to "howto" here. Rhinoracer (talk) 13:50, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Absolutely not the case, an exhaustive list of external references is aimed at; this has nothing to do with howto's, and I assume you are mistaking it for tutorials. If you people would just read properly, and let an article be created calmly, instead of 'bashing' people that are without any personal benefit working very hard and have the guts and decency to create high quality content for the world to use.Clfavreaux 15:48, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete – clear coatrack for the placement of external links. Note that it's not the links themselves that are not allowed (otherwise they would already be blacklisted), but how they're being used. MuZemike 16:55, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- How should they be used then MuZemike? You only state how not, but I'd rather see you describe how should links be used then. An example list of other Wikipedia pages listing external links was given as proof already, and I've added at the bottom the official policy guideline on linking.Clfavreaux 17:59, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- This page was made for people to have a clear understanding on the advantages and availability of CSS reference manuals. If, as you say, the way the links are used is wrong / not allowed, please elaborate on how they should be, or feel free to make changes yourself. After all, it is a community-based encyclopedia. Also, if lists of links like this are not allowed, then why are there so many other lists? For example: List of social networking websites, List of open source software packages, List of Virtual printer software. Do i need to go on? Johnnybravo2009 (talk) 17:11, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I think you're confusing wikilinks—links that go to other Wikipedia articles—with external links (as the name implies, links that go to sites outside of Wikipedia). I hope that clears things up. MuZemike 17:37, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Negative, on the pages i named there are numerous external links to be found Johnnybravo2009 (talk) 17:40, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The existence of other articles are irrelevant to this discussion. We are talking about this one. MuZemike 19:24, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- So basically you're telling me that everyone can do it, except for me? I don't see why it is accepted on other articles, but not on this one. Johnnybravo2009 (talk) 20:07, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The existence of other articles are irrelevant to this discussion. We are talking about this one. MuZemike 19:24, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Negative, on the pages i named there are numerous external links to be found Johnnybravo2009 (talk) 17:40, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I think you're confusing wikilinks—links that go to other Wikipedia articles—with external links (as the name implies, links that go to sites outside of Wikipedia). I hope that clears things up. MuZemike 17:37, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: I've studied all guidelines, and the article in its current state follows all linking policies given at Wikipedia:Linking. Small piece of advice to all 'bashing' commenters out here: by not following the don't bite newcomers policy, you are in fact breaking Wikipedia rules yourself. Understand that newcomers are both necessary for and valuable to the community. By empowering newcomers, we can improve the diversity of knowledge, perspectives, and ideals on Wikipedia, thereby preserving its neutrality and integrity as a resource and ultimately increasing its value. In fact, it has been found that newcomers are responsible for adding the majority of lasting content to Wikipedia (i.e., substantive edits): while insiders and administrators are responsible for a large bulk of total edits, these often involve tweaking, reverting, and rearranging content. If a newcomer seems to have made a small mistake, try to correct it yourself: do not slam the newcomer. Clfavreaux 17:38, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]- First, please remember that this is not a majority vote, there is no need to say keep in bold more than once; that is also not in good practice to do so in these discussions as it may construe as votestacking. Second, I am not slamming anyone, so please assume good faith in that some users are just trying to help out newer users; I am sorry that you do not appreciate that, but that is what I am trying to do. Third, WP:BITE is not a policy but a behavioral guideline (albeit an important one). MuZemike 19:22, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - Having an article on "CSS Reference Manual" is akin to having one on "Tour Guide to Madrid". In both these cases, the encyclopedic topic is CSS and Madrid. — LinguistAtLarge • Talk 23:40, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Move After giving it a night's sleep, and after having carefully read all comments another time, I still disagree on some arguments, but I guess it's not so important to have these content bits on one specific page. I do find it of utmost importance however, that the contents of this page are preserved on Wikipedia, and therefore I will move its contents to Cascading Style Sheets. Johnnybravo2009 (talk) 19:50, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete WP:COATRACK linking to WP:NOT#HOWTO. -- samj inout 16:16, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was redirect to List of characters in the Hitman series. MBisanz talk 00:36, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Hitman Assassins[edit]
- Hitman Assassins (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
The article's subject is not notable and reads like a game guide. It could probably be redirected to the "Major or recurring characters" section of Hitman (series). — Levi van Tine (t – c) 06:40, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge to Hitman (series) & Delete: not a single secondary source makes this 100% original research. MLauba (talk) 07:46, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Move to Hitman assassins or something similar to deal with faulty capitalization and redirect. Merge only material referenced by independent sources. - Mgm|(talk) 11:18, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game related deletion discussions. MLauba (talk) 11:26, 19 March 2009 (UTC). MLauba (talk) 11:26, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per same rationale at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Hitman weapons. Purely original research, game guide material, lack of established notability, you name it. MuZemike 16:26, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete as per above, and speedy deleted article the same editor has started.--Cerejota (talk) 18:13, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete There's no reliable sources that demonstrate any notability in the real-world. ThemFromSpace 01:27, 22 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Material is already covered over at List of characters in the Hitman series. Just redirect it. -- Sabre (talk) 01:50, 22 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. WP:SNOW –Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 00:14, 23 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Future of Pakistan India Peace process[edit]
- Future of Pakistan India Peace process (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
Speculation about future events Headbomb {ταλκκοντριβς – WP Physics} 06:19, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nom - this is an essay, and also fails WP:OR and WP:SYN Nick-D (talk) 07:02, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. In present state, fails WP:CRYSTAL, WP:OR, and WP:NPOV. Seems intrinsically to fail the first two. —SlamDiego←T 13:23, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nom - this is an essay, and also fails WP:OR and WP:SYN --Athos, Porthos, and Aramis (talk) 13:28, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete as per WP:NOTADVOCATE-The EnforcerOffice of the secret service 18:30, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per WP:CRYSTAL Hekerui (talk) 19:02, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was WP:SNOW delete. Eluchil404 (talk) 01:27, 23 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Stercorous[edit]
- Stercorous (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
Definition article, Wikipedia is not a dictionary. -- BeezHive (talk|contribs) 05:48, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete as a possible neologism (if the article's text is to be believed), or an outright hoax, given the definition here. RayTalk 05:53, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Unreferenced, no confirmation of notability. WWGB (talk) 06:13, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete, because we're not a dictionary, and certainly not a dictionary of hoaxes. Even my Latin stretches far enough to establish that this isn't kosher. Gonzonoir (talk) 16:51, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Nonsensical hoax. Deor (talk) 22:42, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- At this point, I think this is fairly well established as a hoax, and is a snowball candidate. -- BeezHive (talk|contribs) 00:42, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was keep. Per WP:SNOW. –Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 00:13, 23 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
DAV Sasaram[edit]
- DAV Sasaram (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
I'm going to regret not speedy-ing this, because this is just about the spammiest school article I've ever seen. My rationale is: 1. I have no clue about advertising culture in India 2. I would really like input from WP:INDIA, and 3. the article has been here since Feb 20; a few more days won't make a big difference. - Dan Dank55 (push to talk) 05:29, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. -- - Dan Dank55 (push to talk) 05:31, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. -- - Dan Dank55 (push to talk) 05:31, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy G11I think your instincts are right on the money. This would require a complete rewrite (and deletion of some of those images) to become encyclopedic. RayTalk 05:50, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]Delete - This is written exactly as an advertisement, with sections like "About Ourselves" and words like outstanding and excellent being passed off as encyclopedic information. Cheers! Scapler (talk) 11:29, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]Strong delete – Wikipedia is not your own web host. MuZemike 16:58, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]- Keep Spam is usually easy to remove. I did so, leaving in only the elements customary in school articles--I even kept in one part that one I do really think suitable but that that most similar school articles include the details of the uniform. I removed most of the photos. I don;t necessarily think anything is wrong with illustrating a school article with portraits of the assembled staffs, but if anyone disagrees, go to it. DGG (talk) 18:31, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep; following good work by DGG this is no longer an advertisement. What is left is a reasonably factual page on a high school that now requires sourcing and expansion. TerriersFan (talk) 20:46, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Change to keep per DGG's personal initiative on improving it. MuZemike 21:37, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Change to keep per DGG's improvements. Though I originally marked for speedy, the article has been salvaged. Cheers! Scapler (talk) 01:38, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep per above.Nrswanson (talk) 01:53, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was speedy delete. Blatant hoaxes are elligible for speedy. Tone 20:32, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The Weakest Link Africa[edit]
- The Weakest Link Africa (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
Total hoax, nothing anywhere online indicating it exists, nothing at the official website. This article is, in fact, the weakest link. Goodbye. roux 05:04, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete as a hoax. Nyttend (talk) 05:13, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Creator was probably RMHED sock and has "retired". Can't this just be speedied now and avoid the drahmaz the creator hoped for? --64.85.221.68 (talk) 07:29, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Speedy delete (G5) – article created by a sock puppet of banned user RMHED (talk · contribs). MuZemike 17:03, 19 March 2009 (UTC) [reply]
- Speedy delete, hoax. ╟─TreasuryTag►contribs─╢ 19:29, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. –Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 00:18, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
New Amerykah Part Two (Return of the Ankh)[edit]
- New Amerykah Part Two (Return of the Ankh) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. This article is about an album that has not yet been released Untick (talk) 04:56, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Also, the alleged release date has been extended numerous times by the record company. I think the third proposed release date just passed and no new date has been issued. Delete. — R2 10:16, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - Unreleased/future albums are not notable without substantial coverage in independent reliable sources, per WP:MUSIC. No such coverage provided or found. - SummerPhD (talk) 18:59, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete as a non-plausible search term, fails notability per WP:MUSIC#Albums & WP:CRYSTAL. Searching pulls up no significant coverage in reliable, third-party, sources. Esradekan Gibb "Talk" 22:40, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. —--Avant-garde a clue-hexaChord2 14:27, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Unreleased, little or no media coverage, poorly sourced. Fails WP:NALBUMS and WP:V.
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was keep. Withdrawn by the IP who originally prodded it [63] (non-admin closure) NuclearWarfare (Talk) 04:43, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
To Die in Jerusalem[edit]
- To Die in Jerusalem (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
Procedural nomination: Originally tagged for prod by an IP as "Non-notalbe [sic] film. No reliable sources" NuclearWarfare (Talk) 04:35, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was keep. WP:SNOW. –Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 00:11, 23 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Mercer Union[edit]
- Mercer Union (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
Please delete, this is an article about an art center no more notable than any other. The only references are to articles that are really about an artist who displayed there, not the gallery. (This nomination made on behalf of Special:Contributions/141.161.68.46, who is unable to create this page.) Hersfold (t/a/c) 03:50, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. —freshacconci talktalk 03:52, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Notability established through quick Google search this article could be easily expanded no reason for delete. I belive the only reason it was put up in the fisrt place was because of Wikipedia:I just don't like it. Kyle1278 (talk) 03:57, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep The Mercer Union has been around for 30 years. The article needs more sources, agreed, but those can be easily found. Over the next few days I'll expand the article. freshacconci talktalk 03:56, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- While some additional sources would be useful, the Eli Langer case — already noted in the article — is sufficient notability in and of itself. Keep. Bearcat (talk) 17:08, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. —Bearcat (talk) 17:08, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep per above...Modernist (talk) 02:55, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep per above.--Ethicoaestheticist (talk) 21:54, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep It has achieved more notability than a run of the mill art center. Ty 18:23, 22 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. MBisanz talk 07:37, 22 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Shawn Cohen[edit]
- Shawn Cohen (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
Not notable. Contains links to Mr Cohen's commercial website and the like. My Notability banner was removed without comment, by a user name obviously created for the purpose (as was a bot's Orphaned banner). I've already removed Shawn Cohen spam from the article Ophthalmology. ἀνυπόδητος (talk) 18:22, 14 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Subject seems to have some notability as the co-author of a few glaucoma related papers, specifically [64], [65],[66]74.69.39.11 (talk) 18:46, 14 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment [67] is noteworthy —Preceding unsigned comment added by Andrewcarovallmd (talk • contribs) 21:57, 14 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The paper mentioned by Andrewcarovallmd above has only been cited twice, not really noteworthy when compared to the way highly influential work of researchers passing WP:PROF here typically is. Pete.Hurd (talk) 04:00, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Besides, Andrewcarovallmd has been created exclusively to add this comment. My apologies if I am wrong, but the article looks very much like an advertisement to me. --ἀνυπόδητος (talk) 09:13, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The article is from the AMA, who I do not believe accepts advertising.74.69.39.11 (talk) 11:42, 16 March 2009 (UTC) My bad.74.69.39.11 (talk) 13:32, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]- I meant the Wikipedia article. --ἀνυπόδητος (talk) 12:54, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:00, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. —David Eppstein (talk) 00:17, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- delete I see no evidence that he passes WP:PROF. Pete.Hurd (talk) 22:02, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Like Pete.Hurd, I could not find enough to establish notability under WP:PROF. Does not seem to pass WP:BIO either - news coverage not particularly impressive.--Eric Yurken (talk) 01:41, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. I am Dr. Shawn Cohen. It was brought to my attention that this biography was made on my behalf, unknown to me. I did not solicit this Article or begin it. I am truly an Assistant Professor of Ophthalmology, at McGill University, dedicated to patient education on my area of expertise, specifically glaucoma.
In keeping with this goal, I have absorbed 100% of the costs to provide free access to up-to-date patient-centered information on glaucoma, cataracts and other diseases. The links on Super Eye Care are to external valuable sites that patients have evaluated as being very useful for them. Not all of my published works, or current projects, are available on the internet, for copyright reasons. As well, some of my National Committee memberships, are not publicly known and will not be seen on the internet.
My free link to a Messages or clinical pearls section is a list of vital tips, some of which have saved people from damage. My eBook can be downloaded for free. I have NO pharmaceutical advertising on my site. All the lecture dates given are for FREE public educational seminars for anyone who wishes to attend. Yes, I am a Professional Speaker and can be hired to coach and teach organizations but only because I have 13 years of University education to back up this expertise. I participate in free discussion boards, like Topix, to help address public concerns on glaucoma and I personally respond to all emails sent to me directly through my website. When I am alone with a patient I can help one person at a time. On the internet, I can relay this information to people I am unable to help in person.
If any material on this or other sites with my involvement are deemed inappropriate, please contact me directly and I will make sure that they are in keeping with the above highest standard. If Wikipedia will serve to allow me perpetuate a pure educational goal for glaucoma and eye care advocacy, I would be honored greatly for your support. I remain humbly dedicated to the needs of the public for their support in dealing with glaucoma and other eye diseases.70.27.246.47 (talk) 21:12, 18 March 2009 (UTC)Shawn Cohen, MD[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz talk 02:56, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete He certainly has published a lot but not much has been published about him. I'd be happy to swing the other way, however, if that can be remedied. Basket of Puppies 03:46, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. -- RayTalk 05:56, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Does not meet notability criteria. ~ Ciar ~ (Talk to me!) 11:00, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- 'Delete per the professor test. Eusebeus (talk) 20:46, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. WP:PROF. JFW | T@lk 11:19, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. –Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 00:19, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Web2project[edit]
- Web2project (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
Per http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Caseydk&oldid=278253686, there's no product yet so it can't be notable yet. Doesn't look like db-spam and I can't db-notability software, so taking to AfD. - Dan Dank55 (push to talk) 02:48, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. -- - Dan Dank55 (push to talk) 02:48, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete unless more sources can be added. Basket of Puppies 03:46, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. No prejudice against re-creating it once the software has been released and has received third-party reviews. — RHaworth (Talk | contribs) 04:10, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete, yet more non-consumer task management software. Does every single one of these packages think marketing on Wikipedia is the way to go? - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 14:42, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. No claim of meeting WP:Notability, and none found in gsearch. The parent project, dotProject, also isn't coming up with notability, so a redirect probably isn't a good option here.--Fabrictramp | talk to me 23:50, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. MBisanz talk 00:36, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
O'monte Jackson[edit]
- O'monte Jackson (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
Unsourced, a sophomore in college is not someone who has competed at a fully professional level or at the highest levels of the amateur level. Does not meet WP:ATHLETE. A new name 2008 (talk) 02:34, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete, no demonstration of notability. Nyttend (talk) 05:14, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete as per nom. RayTalk 05:58, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Third team all-conference in a mid-major conference does not rise to the level of notability needed to warrant an article for a college athlete. DarkAudit (talk) 22:28, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:01, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was '. Redirect has has already been done. StarM 03:24, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Bass player[edit]
- Bass player (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
There is only one article linked here that is actually an article. The other is a redlink. I don't know if this is okay or not, but it seems to me that this is pointless. Belasted (talk) 02:23, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge and Redirect to Bassist. FYI, you can do this yourself, no need to bring it to AFD. In fact, you can non-admin close the AFD and do it right now. 98.212.129.124 (talk) 02:33, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Boldly redirected. There was no need to bring this to AfD per before nominating an article for deletion, point 4. Now, if the Nom could contact an admin, like MBisanz talk to get this closed off. Esradekan Gibb "Talk" 02:51, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep This needs to be a dabpage with 3 alternatives, Bass Player (the album), Bassist, and Bass Player (magazine). The third is a redlink, which per MOS:DABRL is acceptable since it has incoming links from multiple other articles requesting the article be written. In any case I'll write it tomorrow if I get a chance. — LinguistAtLarge • Talk 03:18, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was speedy redirect to Hinder. A merger should be accompanied by a redirect to retain the edit history. Mgm|(talk) 11:07, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Austin Winkler[edit]
- Austin Winkler (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
Not much to say beyond his involvement in Hinder, a relatively new band with just a few hits. I had a merge request up for at least a few weeks, no complaints. Did the merge, I feel satisfactorily, tonight. Article is frequently vandalized and barely watched. CSZero (talk) 02:00, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge and Redirect: FYI, you can do this right now. Just do a non-admin close and redirect it. 98.212.129.124 (talk) 02:35, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. MBisanz talk 00:36, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Chūbu-Doka[edit]
- Chūbu-Doka (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
Originally ProD tagged for being an unsourced dictionary definition. Author removed the ProD tag and added a slew of references.... well, actually what he added was a single reference (a link to a Japanese-English dictionary) two large see-also sections, and a reading list for people interested in lean production, none of which helps this to pass WP:DICT. Google turns up nothing on this term, making me also question notability. Author (LeanGuru) is also apparently a SPA, and his or her username makes me wonder if there might also be a conflict of interest in play. -Senseless!... says you, says me 01:31, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Strong Delete or Redirect to Lean Manufacturing. This is a non-notable dictionary term which is unlikely to evolve into a full article. Isn't that one of the Speedy Categories? 98.212.129.124 (talk) 02:38, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm not even sure en.wiktionary.org would take it since its a non-English term that hasn't passed into standard usage in English. I originally was thinking A3 (since its little more than a "see also" section), but since the PROD was declined, I felt going with AfD would be safer. -Senseless!... says you, says me 02:43, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge and Redirect into Lean Manufacturing --H8erade (talk) 17:25, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete as possible hoax: Dictionary reference source does not give any mention of this term. --DAJF (talk) 02:44, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nom.Nrswanson (talk) 03:56, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. —Fg2 (talk) 10:35, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete The reference to Daijirin is to a different word. I don't see "doka" when I search the external links. Fg2 (talk) 10:37, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete as likely hoax. Aside from turning up nothing on Google, the Dictionary reference seems like smoke and mirrors. Neither the hiragana (ちゅうぶどうか) nor what I think would be the Kanji (中部働化) appear on that page. Nor do these terms yield anything from Google. Seems like a novel reworking of "Jidoka".--Shunpiker (talk) 06:44, 23 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: The dictionary reference is to "mottainai" which (if this dictionary is to be believed) means "more than one deserves" or "wasteful". --Shunpiker (talk) 06:51, 23 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was SPEEDY KEEP, not actually a deletion request. I'll be watching these closely, though. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire - past ops) 20:58, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The Code Lyoko characters 2[edit]
- Odd Della Robbia (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
- Aelita Hopper (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
As suggested in the edit warring noticeboard, I am nominating these two articles for deletion because they were already merged at AfD. An editor disagrees with the merger, and two sets of edit wars later he simply cannot be swayed from the position that he must be right. The articles are in no better a state than they were when they were merged, just worded differently. As he admits on Talk:Odd Della Robbia, the current state of the article is all he plans to make of it. I've tried to point him to a featured article for an example of how it should look to no avail. — Trust not the Penguin (T | C) 00:36, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Procedural Keep – this is what dispute resolution is for. May I suggest a request for comment or possibly informal mediation instead of another AFD? Also, no one has looked for any input from WP:FRANCE or WP:TELEVISION; that should at least be tried, first. MuZemike 01:13, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - main character from a highly popular tv series, and also, i never said this was all i was ever going to do with it, i said thats all i had for now on odd's page, aelita's is still being worked on, i said with oddd that if it needed more i would try to expand it. get your facts straight Jeremie Belpois (talk) 01:28, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was speedy redirect to Incredibad. (The people who chose to delete, did not address why they thought the redirect shouldn't exist.) Mgm|(talk) 11:02, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
We Like Sportz[edit]
- We Like Sportz (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
Non-notable song. It is unsourced, it is not a single, has never charted, and nothing suggests any notability. The only purpose of the article seems to be to describe the music video. Rwiggum (Talk/Contrib) 19:42, 14 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. —--Avant-garde a clue-hexaChord2 21:13, 14 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge & Redirect to Incredibad. Sources exist, and it kinda was released as a video single but you will delete it anyway. --Avant-garde a clue-hexaChord2 22:41, 14 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete, fails notability per WP:MUSIC#Songs. No awards, no chart, no covers, no WP:RS. Esradekan Gibb "Talk" 23:37, 14 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete: non-notable non-charting song WP:NSONGS. JamesBurns (talk) 00:00, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Redirect to the album, I see no reason not to. Duffbeerforme (talk) 06:04, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 00:06, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete non-single songs generally don't have their own article, and this one is no exception. Tavix (talk) 02:16, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. MBisanz talk 00:06, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Diversity In Team Work[edit]
- Diversity In Team Work (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
Simple case of original research. — RHaworth (Talk | contribs) 02:16, 14 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - if this were to be kept, it would really need to be cleaned up and wikified as currently it is just a big blob of text. MathCool10 Sign here! 03:47, 14 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - my above reason. MathCool10 Sign here! 03:50, 14 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Original research. Plus, non-notable. Wikipedia is not a non-peer reviewed unedited journal. Bongomatic 10:09, 14 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete, per MathCool comment. -Axmann8 (Talk) 12:54, 14 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 00:05, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was no consensus. MBisanz talk 23:02, 23 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Elina Fuhrman[edit]
- Elina Fuhrman (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
A search shows some ghits resulting from her work, but no evidence she's notable for her work. No evidence of these unnamed and uncited awards she's won, and without those she's just another CNN correspondent. StarM 04:15, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. -- StarM 04:16, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete I can't find any info on these awards she's supposedly won. If this info was added, then I might reconsider, depending on which awards they were. Otherwise fails WP:N. --GedUK 14:57, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep having passed the "minimum level of notability" i say keep.--Judo112 (talk) 17:43, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz talk 00:00, 14 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz talk 00:05, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Gnews confirms her existence, but since this consists almost entirely of reporting from her and not about her, I conclude she fails WP:BIO. RayTalk 06:02, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Weak Keep She does seem to have won awards for her journalism and it is a natioan network.... Vartanza (talk) 07:13, 23 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was redirect to College of Charleston. MBisanz talk 07:34, 22 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
College of Charleston EMS[edit]
- College of Charleston EMS (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
A student organization that has no notability beyond its campus. I added a small paragraph on the group to the main article on the college; this article, however, seems more like an advertisement for the group, which is why I brought it here. Pastor Theo (talk) 12:19, 14 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nom. -Axmann8 (Talk) 12:56, 14 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. —87.252.35.195 (talk) 14:09, 14 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. —87.252.35.195 (talk) 14:09, 14 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of South Carolina-related deletion discussions. —87.252.35.195 (talk) 14:09, 14 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - no coverage in reliable sources -- Whpq (talk) 13:41, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. —TerriersFan (talk) 22:04, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge into parent Article (College of Charleston). A Educational Facility providing EMS services is Notable. The 1 unit EMS service by itself is not (unless RS's can disprove that). Exit2DOS2000•T•C• 22:24, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge/redirect to College of Charleston. Notable feature; well worth a section in the target. TerriersFan (talk) 22:28, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 00:04, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete as nn; no need for rd. JJL (talk) 00:15, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nom. ~ Ciar ~ (Talk to me!) 11:07, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge/redirect per WP:PRESERVE. It'll need to be pruned, but it's a noteworthy student-run service and aspect to the university. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:52, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I've also placed a rescue tag on the article. We do have a category for college ambulance service articles and if someone can show some RS indicating notability for this outfit, I'd be happy to change my vote to keep. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:17, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. MBisanz talk 07:33, 22 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
George Lovenguth[edit]
- George Lovenguth (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
The only shred of notability I can source is that he is running for the Florida State Senate in 2010. pablohablo. 18:16, 14 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Not notable in any way. Candidates for state legislature offices usually do not merit their own articles, and if they do, it is not on that basis alone. If Lovenguth is elected to the Florida Senate, then a better-written, better-organized biographical article may be created -- but not before then. A Stop at Willoughby (talk) 21:33, 14 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Is he running for that or for US Senate (Martinez's retiring seat)? This is clearly non-notable, there is no news about him at all (a google news search) BrianY (talk) 03:28, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment From what I've found online, Lovenguth is actually a failed state Senate candidate from last year. The article's creator (whom I suspect is Lovenguth himself) has now added to the article a sentence claiming that he is "the democrat candidate for the Florida 2010 United States Senate." First of all, he is not the Democratic candidate, as the primary isn't for over a year. And second of all, I can find absolutely no press coverage of Lovenguth entering the race. Perhaps he intends to run, and that's nice, but in no way does it make him notable enough for his own article. In the event that he is nominated by the Democrats in 2010, then an article could be created. A Stop at Willoughby (talk) 15:10, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz talk 00:03, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per all above. Even if he is running for the U.S. Senate, he will be facing a multiple-candidate primary just to make it into the general election, and he has not established independent news coverage yet. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 05:17, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I agree we should delete this page. It's not worthy of Wikipedia. No mention online other than a blog but that may be his friend's blog. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 140.232.152.183 (talk) 02:06, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. MBisanz talk 07:33, 22 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Allen Riedel[edit]
- Allen Riedel (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
Subject is not notable and the article is clearly promotional in nature ElKevbo (talk) 18:37, 14 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Fine, delete it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.92.66.39 (talk) 18:49, 14 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- comment subject is the author of 4 books dealing with detailing day hikes in various parts of SoCal.74.69.39.11 (talk) 18:58, 14 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Strong delete - clearly promotional resume; no assertion or evidence of any notability whatsoever; could have been speedied. --Orange Mike | Talk 17:13, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I thought about requesting a speedy but didn't feel comfortable given that there are (weak) claims of notability as a published author. --ElKevbo (talk) 17:57, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 00:02, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Weak Delete Gnews search can confirm the existence of those books, but they don't seem to rise to the threshold of notability themselves, either. RayTalk 06:06, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was redirect to Norm Coleman. I've left a note on the relevant page about merging. Mgm|(talk) 10:57, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Laurie Coleman[edit]
- Laurie Coleman (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
Mrs. Coleman lacks notability on her own. She's the wife of a former Senator, but notability is not inherited. She's tried out a bunch of careers ("aspiring actor, model, licensed insurance agent and mother", as well as inventor), but in none of these has she risen above bit player. She was involved in some painfully abstruse financial scandal, but even if that has notability, it's already covered in her husband's biography. The subject of this article, too, should also get a few lines here, but is not notable in her own right. Biruitorul Talk 16:09, 14 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- My inclination is to redirct to Norm Coleman and mention the subject there. Some cursory searches don't indicate the subject is notable in her own right. The redirect is appropriate as it is a possible search term. — LinguistAtLarge • Talk 20:40, 14 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. -- — LinguistAtLarge • Talk 20:41, 14 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- redirect to Norm Coleman as per LinguistAtLarge.--Cerejota (talk) 05:51, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz talk 00:03, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- redirect to Norm Coleman per WP:INHERITED. Jd027talk 00:32, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:58, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Critical Software[edit]
- Critical Software (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
This does seem like spam, even if vaguely connected with a university. Note for instance the lead description, lifted from BusinessWeek, and the lack of third-party references. Biruitorul Talk 15:48, 14 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - Article needs a lot of work, but seems to be a well-established, viable company. Needs references and a rewrite of milestones - they are lifted from company website. ttonyb1 (talk) 16:40, 14 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz talk 00:02, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep, very weakly. I edited the article to remove the copyrighted text from Business Week and the official site, and what's left is a very slight stub. A possibly interesting business whose article gets lost in systems-speak. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 14:50, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment There are quite a few articles about its spin off company, Critical Links, on TMC: [68] Laurent (talk) 15:05, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:48, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Aksyon Radyo Bacolod[edit]
- Aksyon Radyo Bacolod (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
Unnotable radio station, PROD removed. ApprenticeFan Messages Work 12:11, 14 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. It has been cited in major Bacolod/Negros newspapers, such as the Visayan Daily Star and the Sun.Star Bacolod. I'll take the time to clean it up, and, following convention, the article has been moved to its callsign. --Sky Harbor (talk) 15:28, 14 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. —Bluemask (talk) 04:12, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. What the articles needs is a major cleanup. --Bluemask (talk) 02:12, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz talk 00:02, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. —Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:58, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. Licensed radio stations in the United States are routinely considered notable, so I don't see why this one should be treated any differently. Phil Bridger (talk) 22:17, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. MBisanz talk 23:02, 23 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
SM City Tungko[edit]
- SM City Tungko (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
Verifiability in question. No ghits outside entry in templates. Location is not even mentioned in the main webpage of SM Prime Holdings at [69]. Only "clue" of existence is this unnamed mall at this website [70]--Lenticel (talk) 05:52, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. —Bluemask (talk) 07:08, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nom. Unsourced and not yet announced. --ApprenticeFan Messages Work 07:52, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- It says here that the SM mall will be located in Tala, Novaliches, not in Brgy. Tungko, SJDM. Secaundis (talk) 05:21, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- There will be no SM City Tungko. http://www.smprime.com/News.php?BlurbID=2041 Secaundis (talk) 23:38, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Might I ask that you quote where it says that, as I cannot find where it says it will not be, on that page. Exit2DOS2000•T•C• 23:09, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
SM Supercenter Novaliches[edit]
- "Castanares said the SM mall is part of the proposed 500-hectare estate that would be developed by the consortium proposing the MRT-7 at Tala, Novaliches into a residential shopping area". Secaundis (talk) 23:51, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Aaaaa I see what u mean now... It also says "”SM Malls that will be constructed in MRT 7 will help decongest Metro Manila,” said Roberto Castanares" ... Malls in the plural ... but, sadly, I cant find much in the way of RS's even under its original name. Delete without prejudice of recreation at a better time. Exit2DOS2000•T•C• 01:50, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- It Says here that SM will built 3 more malls. SM Supercenter Novaliches, SM San Pablo (in Laguna), and SM Commonwealth in QC, walang nakasulat na SM City Tungko. So there are no plans that SM will built a mall in Tungko. Sorry my english is not that good! :) Secaundis (talk) 03:51, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 01:07, 14 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz talk 00:02, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete No official mention at SM website, fails WP:CRYSTAL. Wouldn't oppose recreation if/when this is officially announced. Only reference indicates that a mall will be built by SM Group, but doesn't name the mall or specify where it will be located. I'd call this a borderline WP:HOAX but I think I'll WP:AGF and assume that someone was just going off rumors instead of RS. I'm also concerned with a copyright vio of the images on the page but that's a separate issue. KuyaBriBriTalk 19:16, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:52, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Fred J Speakman[edit]
- Fred J Speakman (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
No noted notability. Only listed reference is a photo of a plaque, and no other sources found on a quick search. fuzzy510 (talk) 04:30, 14 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I found 105 gBook hits, including a reference to a Primary School Library Books, where a book is described as "..a very highly praised..." and a web entry that calls Speakman a "...respected naturalist...". 74.69.39.11 (talk) 16:12, 14 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment
Hi. Please read comment below regarding Speakman's notability. Thankyou
Fred Speakman grew up and lived in Epping Forest and in his later years ran a Field study centre at High Beach, where Speakman pond still bears his name. other titles by him are A Poachers Tale Torty of Woodend Out of the Wild Tracks, Trails and Signs a forest by Night
I hope that this information is of help
regards
Tony O'Connor
District Museum Officer
Epping Forest District Museum
39/41 Sun Street
Waltham Abbey
Essex
EN9 3TY
01992 716882
Northmetpit (talk) 18:03, 14 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm going to come down on the side of keep here because he has a blue plaque erected here[71]. In the UK, a blue plaque is erected to to commemorate a link between a location and a famous person (or event). I note also that Speakman was active long before the internet (he died in 1979, I think) so it is unlikely that we would find coverage of him there and we would need to resort to paper sources. Despite that, there are a lot of hits in Google books, as noted by user 74.69.39.11, of his books and of reviews of his books, from which we glean snippets that Speakman was a "famous naturalist", "one of Britain's best-known naturalist-authors", and "Mr. Speakman is among Britain's leading naturalist-authors". There is, I think, an article to be written here but it needs more work and access to paper sources. If consensus is for delete, I would be grateful if the article could be userfied to my userspace for further work. Thanks, --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 00:18, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz talk 00:01, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep Blue Plaques are rarely doled out in the UK and only to by definition notables. But could do with more sourcing on his books and background--Moloch09 (talk) 01:58, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep: Sourcing is going to be an issue given the time and place of activity, but a quick troll through Google books shows his works featuring prominently in education and book sales yearbooks in the 50s and 60s, there's a British Pathe clip from 1968 of him leading trips that makes a point of showing all his books to paint him as a renowned expert. People are interviewed in a city of London oral history of urban children retreats remembering meeting him (as if hew were a star), and most of the mentions of him in naturalist contexts come across as an appeal to authority when using his name. The problem is, there's not much online reference for popular naturalism education of the early 1960s. Despite that, it seems a fair bet that he was then much better known than prominent British scientists of his day whose notability is today easier to reference. Also, his illustrated books seem today much in demand from the antiquarian book trade. T L Miles (talk) 17:05, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was keep. Mgm|(talk) 10:55, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Maha Thammarachathirat[edit]
- Maha Thammarachathirat (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
I cannot find any sources through Google. If Phra Maha Thammrachathirat was indeed the first king or the Ayutthaya kingdom then there would be stuff written about him. Antivenin 11:59, 14 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep One source is listed in the article, Googlebooks shows several others exist. [72] [73] [74] Edward321 (talk) 14:49, 14 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. You don't have to go past a Google Books search in the Latin alphabet for the article title [75] to confirm that he was king. Kings are notable. Phil Bridger (talk) 16:17, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz talk 00:01, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. MBisanz talk 23:02, 23 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
In Love Again (Massari album)[edit]
- In Love Again (Massari album) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
Article created in October 2008 as a future release but 5 months later there is nothing here: no sources whatsoever and no info to go on. Not notable and violates WP:CRYSTAL at the very least. Even "confirmed" track list is unreferenced. I tagged the article a month ago and nothing of substance has been added and nothing has been improved. Suggest deletion or merge to artist page. - eo (talk) 21:18, 14 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. —--Avant-garde a clue-hexaChord2 22:48, 14 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - nothing said about the album on the official pages. Couldn't find much from other sources, besides 90k Ghits for the single of the same name. --Avant-garde a clue-hexaChord2 23:03, 14 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete, fails notability per WP:MUSIC#Albums & WP:CRYSTAL. Searching pulls up no reliable, third-party, sources. Esradekan Gibb "Talk" 23:37, 14 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 00:01, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. MBisanz talk 07:33, 22 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Return Ticket (Film)[edit]
- Return Ticket (Film) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
Unreleased film. One of the problems is that sources may be in Bengali but still, I can't find info about it beyond the official website, can't find indication that the director has made other films, can't find info about the lead actors. Pascal.Tesson (talk) 16:57, 14 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. —PC78 (talk) 17:47, 14 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I did fins "Masud Parvez (Sohel Rana) has directed a film named ‘Return Ticket’ after a long time", but not much else. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 03:44, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:01, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bangladesh-related deletion discussions. —Shawn in Montreal (talk) 21:23, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete: Non-notable, and unreleased film. Possibly spam by the article creator, which seems to be an account created solely to spam WP about this film and actors. There is no significant buzz in Bangladeshi media about this movie. --Ragib (talk) 21:28, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - the film does not yet exist, or if it does, it is non-notable. Unionsoap (talk) 23:34, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. MBisanz talk 23:02, 23 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Derek Keeling[edit]
- Derek Keeling (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
Questionable notability. Small parts of small productions; if the main claim to fame is ending third on a Grease talent show, that's not enough. tedder (talk) 06:32, 14 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. —87.252.35.195 (talk) 14:35, 14 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:01, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete as nn per WP:BIO with WP:COI concerns. Reads like a CV not an encyclopedia entry. Eusebeus (talk) 18:06, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz talk 00:01, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - Meets WP:Creative. This actor had a significant, regular and recurring role in the notable TV show "Grease: You're the One That I Want!".(2007). Untick (talk) 04:52, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete "The show ran with mixed to positive reviews, and to sold out crowds, in Sarasota, FL at the Asolo Repetory Theatre from October to November". Wow! "He was replaced in 'Tale' by Aaron Lazar. It appeared Keeling made the proper decision when Tale announced its closure for November 9. Grease closed on January 4, 2009." According to my maths, Tale ran longer than Grease. "Who is best known as the third-place finisher in the reality casting show". No comment. Peridon (talk) 17:59, 22 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. MBisanz talk 23:02, 23 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Guadeloupe Revolution[edit]
- Guadeloupe Revolution (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
This is another creation by User:Jersay, this time attempting to portray a brief period of political unrest in Guadeloupe as a revolution. This is flagrantly inaccurate POV pushing, as I can't find any description of these events as a revolution in any reliable source. The name of this article appears to be an invention of the article's creator. Any useful, verifiable information here could be salvaged to History of Guadeloupe, but mostly we are looking at a big WP:NOTNEWS and WP:NPOV, WP:OR and WP:SYN violation. AlexTiefling (talk) 21:47, 14 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Addendum - It transpires that there's nothing to merge, since there's already the much better 2009 French Caribbean general strikes, of which the present article is a POV fork. AlexTiefling (talk) 22:28, 14 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nominator. What a difference between the two (in style and scope, but especially in sources). You're right, there seems to be nothing to merge. Drmies (talk) 22:59, 14 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. —Nick-D (talk) 08:01, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete and merge any useful information--H8erade (talk) 17:15, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Support the deletion. We have 2009 French Caribbean general strikes which fully covers the subject.--Yaroslav Blanter (talk) 21:53, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 00:01, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The happenings in Guadeloupe could be translated 'general strike' - but they are far from a revolution. also the table is grave : 25000 workers against president sarkosy.. LOL The rest of the text is OK and might be included in the main articel (guadeloupe general strike) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.63.145.166 (talk) 02:59, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete This is redundant to the article on the strikes and seems to have been made up. I note that the editor who created the article has been blocked for being a sock puppet. Nick-D (talk) 11:01, 23 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 15:28, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Faisal Kutty[edit]
- Faisal Kutty (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
Notability not established --Docku: What's up? 18:49, 14 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. —--Docku: What's up? 18:53, 14 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Some gScholar hits, gBooks, gHits. 74.69.39.11 (talk) 19:02, 14 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Weak keep because even though I don't see a lot of in-depth discussion of this person, he has published (an article in CounterPunch, for instance) and, more importantly, he's cited continuously in CBC stories. Drmies (talk) 20:41, 14 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:01, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:00, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It is now identified as a stub - wait . Also it may require general cleanup eventully. This person is an author of many (Notable that way). --Athos, Porthos, and Aramis (talk) 14:03, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. —Bearcat (talk) 17:17, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - lots of citations available by him at Google Scholar, and about him, too. Easy to clean up; I've started the job for you. Bearian (talk) 15:15, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was merge to Jack Russell terrier . MBisanz talk 00:33, 23 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Atlas Terrier[edit]
- Atlas Terrier (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
Notability as a breed has never been established, and no reliable sources appear to be available to establish notability. Non-reliable sources [76] as well as the talk page seem to indicate that the Atlas Terrier originated from a single breeder, who created the article. The article has finally acquired references, but they pertain more to the breeder than to Atlas Terriers, making this article something of a coatrack. The incident detailed in the references may belong in WikiNews, but overshadows the actual subject of this article, and does little to justify keeping it. Shunpiker (talk) 18:25, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Do we have a breed standard? The article sounds like a newspaper news. There is no information about the dogs. (except that they have been treater awful) Warrington (talk) 19:20, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- AFAIK, there is no guideline established specifically for dog breed notability, although there has been discussion on the matter. The general notability guideline suggests that a topic should have received "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject" in order to be presumed notable. In this case, Atlas Terriers do not seem to have received such coverage. -- Shunpiker (talk) 19:37, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Do we have a breed standard? The article sounds like a newspaper news. There is no information about the dogs. (except that they have been treater awful) Warrington (talk) 19:20, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The poor doggy, Ok, found some things http://www.freebase.com/view/user/mikeshwe/pet_breeds/dog_breed_group
http://www.thebreedsofdogs.com/CHIEN_DE_LATLAS.htm
http://purebreadpupsa-z.blogspot.com/2007/01/atlas-terrier.html h ttp://www.greatdogsite.com/breeds/details/Atlas_Terrier/ , but I am not sure... But still I have to admit I never heard of the breed and Jack Russels were for a lond time (or are still not. Not sure) considered as a breed. Maybe we should just wait and see what will happen, one can always create a new article if and when they are registered. Warrington (talk) 13:31, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The "Chien d'atlas" is a different breed, related to sheepdogs. The other references are from self-published sources, freebase and blogspot. I contested the application of the {{hoax}} tag to this article, because enough non-reliable sources are available to indicate that the topic was not just made up for wikipedia. But I have yet to find any reliable sources which mention atlas terriers, aside from the newspaper article which mentions that atlas terriers were present when the Autumn Briar Kennel was raided. -- Shunpiker (talk) 15:38, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
What they asy is this: Atlas Terriers are direct descendants of the Jack Russell Terrier. One distinguishing difference between the two breeds is the fact that Atlas Terriers can exist with a solid-colored coat. Atlas Terriers have a coat that may be a variety of different colors, including merles and brindles. They may also have white markings on their collars, toes, face, or chest. The two types of Atlas Terrier coats are smooth and wire. Atlas Terriers are an off shoot of the Jack Russell Terrier. The Jack Russell Terrier is the result of many different terrier breeds being crossed together. Breeders created the Jack Russell Terrier for their working abilities and paid little attention to their looks. Throughout history, more and more people have bred dogs for cosmetic reasons as opposed to their original working purpose(s). The Jack Russell Terrier is a perfect example of this concept. Contemporary breeders attempted to breed the Jack Russell Terrier into a mostly white dog, and they regarded the multi-colored specimens as non-breedable. Unfortunately, the gene that causes the mostly white coloration has led certain Jack Russell Terriers to become deaf. The coloration of the Atlas Terrier greatly reduces its chance of deafness.''
I don't feel sure enough to say either keep or delete. Warrington (talk) 13:41, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
This one h ttp://www.greatdogsite.com/breeds/details/Atlas_Terrier/ , but the link is spam listed on Wikipedia... so... Warrington (talk) 17:09, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge to a mention in Jack Russell terrier article. Insufficient coverage for a stand alone article. Woof! ChildofMidnight (talk) 15:40, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 00:57, 14 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz talk 00:00, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge - Based on the current sources available, I can't justify a separate article for this new breed. A merge with Jack Russel Terrier sounds like the best course at this point. When/if the subject gains individual notability, it can be broken out to its own article again. A redirect is justified, since this is a possible search term. — LinguistAtLarge • Talk 00:11, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete unless reliable sources specifically describing the "Atlas Terrier" can be found. There are a ridiculous number of offshoot "breeds" like this out there; most of them are bred by no more than a few individual breeders, and lack recognition from the larger dog-breeding community (i.e, kennel clubs and breed registries). The news story hanging on this WP:COATRACK is certainly sad, but it doesn't add to the notability of the breed. Zetawoof(ζ) 07:25, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was speedily deleted under WP:CSD#G7. Non-admin closure. Matt (talk) 05:21, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Emergency warning system for vehicles[edit]
- Emergency warning system for vehicles (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
Although there is certainly a topic lying beneath all of the words in this article, the article itself is in my view unsalvagable. It purports to describe an emergency warning system for vehicles; fails to make it clear whether it is describing fact or academic fantasy; is riddled with obtuse abstruse sentences, including sentences without verbs, making comprehension a nightmare. It makes sweeping assertions (such that EWSV will be self-orienting or of open network architectures ... surely speculation and/or one specific instance of the class).
It looks to me as if the article is connected with a research project (COOPERS) and that the author is confusing the aims of his project with the more general field.
As for policy, the article does not meet a notability standard: no claim is made for the notability of this flight of fancy, nor is any definition of the subject given sufficient to enable other users to research the notability of the subject. --Tagishsimon (talk) 00:00, 19 March 2009 (UTC) Tagishsimon (talk) 00:00, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete unsourced technical essay. Not sure what the right name for this would be but this isn't it. JJL (talk) 00:17, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. MBisanz talk 00:32, 23 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Elon Bomani[edit]
- Elon Bomani (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
The article is a complete Autobiography and breaches the Neutral point of view, No original research and Notability policies in Biographies of living persons. Hekerui (talk) 19:10, 14 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Weak keep--nominator is quite right on most counts, but this search has a couple of hits from the Sacramento Bee and Observer; coupled with the article from JET referenced in the article it might just squeak by. Of course, the spam needs cutting. Drmies (talk) 20:33, 14 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:01, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:00, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Weak Keep I looked at the coverage, and I agree with Drmies -- this squeaks by. That said, all the other issues have force. RayTalk 06:13, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Weak Delete - I just did a bit of cleanup on this article, and it does has a number of claims that hint at notability, but it needs a lot of work... as far as the provided links go, the Blacknews.com link is a self released press release (read: advertisement), the JET article makes her out to be more of a landlord than anything, and the Essence link provides only a teaser about 4 different women... there are no references provided for anything other than she has authored 2 books, is a landlord with a million dollars worth of property, and is "creator of Bomani's Village Enterprises"... no references for childhood or education, and no concrete proof of notability... being the CEO of a company does not automatically allow someone to pass WP:N, and as an author, I'm not 100% sure she passes WP:CREATIVE either... She claims to have written a handful of books, but there is no mention of how successful those books were, nor how successful her company was... the WP:AUTO concerns bother me also... unless references are added to prove why she passes the notability concerns, I'm leaning towards delete for now... - Adolphus79 (talk) 14:18, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - as nominator. Hekerui (talk) 14:32, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - I'm concerned about the extravagant claims and obvious errors - there is no Westchester University, but she may have attended West Chester University, but then again that is not clear. It reads like a resume, not an article. I'd need a lot of convincing to change my mind about this one. Bearian (talk) 15:20, 20 March 2009 (UTC) There are lots of hits on Google and Yahoo, but nothing in Google News. Is she famous in the African American community and in Sacramento, but not in the wider world? Is she bad at getting news copy? Bearian (talk) 15:24, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was no consensus. MBisanz talk 23:01, 23 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Erin Lucas[edit]
- Erin Lucas (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
Lacks notability. JaimeAnnaMoore (talk)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:01, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:00, 14 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - perhaps a sysop can check if this is a repost of Erin Williams? — LinguistAtLarge • Talk 18:10, 14 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Daughter of somebody famous, best friend of somebody semi-famous, but notability is not inherited. WP:BLP1E also applies as she doesn't seem to have done anything significant aside from appearing on a reality show. —97198 (talk) 02:36, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - I feel that the above users seem to have not done their homework on this one. A couple of points, here. First, WP:BLP1E seems to have been misinterpreted in this case: Lucas' role in the television show is ongoing. She is a cast member after all. Also, the point that she is the daughter of Cliff Williams is irrelevant, yes, but should not disqualify the article's existence on those grounds, as some seem to be implying. In addition, in accordance with WP:BIO, I've found this source mentioning her, this source, this source, this source, this source, this source, this source, this source, and this source. So even though most of us Wikipedians wouldn't care about such a topic, the intended audience would, and our own policies that we do care about back this up. Jd027talk 16:53, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz talk 00:00, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was keep. MBisanz talk 23:01, 23 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Alan Downs[edit]
- Alan Downs (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
This subject appears to fail WP:PROF. There is a pretty obvious WP:COI on the part of the creator, and the article is loaded with peacock terms. Guy (Help!) 20:50, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Seems like a perfectly good article that is substantiated and of a notable individual. Of course, it can always be improved and added to. Dwain (talk) 20:17, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:00, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:02, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep: Review in Personnel Psychology vol. 51 issue 2 suggests he has done a fair bit of work in the "group narcissism" field. Ottre 21:54, 19 March 2009 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. MBisanz talk 23:01, 23 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Pro-active Recordings[edit]
- Pro-active Recordings (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
Procedural nomination. User Michaelbarnett72 had placed several speedys on this page all of which were denied. I posted on his user page and said they'd have to take it to AfD. They placed the AfD template on the page but they appear not to have finished the nomination. At about the same time they commented on my talk page that they wanted to article deleted because "i wish for my own article on my own company to be deleted as its no longer relevant, the company has been dissolved, so i wish for the page to be removed." At the moment I'm neutral as although there's planty there to save it from speedy I'm less sure whether it meets our notability guidelines. If I have time I'll do further research and change my vote appropiately. Dpmuk (talk) 23:08, 14 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 23:59, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete: trivial coverage. For a record company that claims to have been around as long they have, only 200 ghits (total includes wiki mirrors) isn't that many. WP:CORP. JamesBurns (talk) 06:42, 23 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was speedy delete. WP:CSD#A7. Mgm|(talk) 10:50, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Dragon Brawler[edit]
- Dragon Brawler (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
Notability in question. No hits regarding this game or the authors. Probably made up Lenticel (talk) 22:28, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nom. I couldn't find any relevant Google hits and it reads like nonsense. I think it's something someone made up just for fun. TJ Spyke 00:20, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Speedy Delete as A7 and possibly G3. I think the fact that the creators of the series are 12 and 7 might speak for itself...it's most likely something they've made up. No Google hits, no news hits, non-notable. Nikkimaria (talk) 03:25, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- ^ http://itunes.apple.com/WebObjects/MZStore.woa/wa/viewArtistSongs?artistId=251478046 iTunes Top Songs Karl Did